list_trading_destinations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: the operation is read-only and never exposes credentials — a meaningful security disclosure given the sibling get_credential_storage. It stops short of covering required permissions beyond "Officer", whether results are paginated, or what a "destination" actually comprises.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences; the scope statement comes first and the security reassurance second. No filler, nothing an agent has to skim past.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, audience, and safety profile. Only the relationship to trading connections and the shape of a "destination" remain unstated, which is a minor gap given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both the optional mode filter and the required account code are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the account format (e.g., code vs. ID) or the paper/live mode toggle, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("List") and concrete resource ("trading destinations") scoped to an Officer account, which is clearly distinct from list_accounts, list_orders, and list_trades. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like get_trading or get_credential_storage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"available to an Officer account" implies the prerequisite (an Officer-level account code) but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_trading or get_credential_storage, nor any when-not conditions. Usage must be inferred from the resource name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.