List payment route allowed senders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context (only some Australian routes enforce whitelists, so an empty result may be normal), but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination.

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 sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded and the qualifying domain fact placed second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-required-parameter read-only list with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is minor: it does not say what a result entry contains or how an empty list should be interpreted beyond the hint that some routes have no whitelist.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (customerId, and virtualAccountId described as the AUD payment route). The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a concrete resource ('bank accounts whitelisted to pay into an AUD payment route'), which is more precise than the title alone. It is clearly readable against siblings like add_route_whitelist_account and update_route_whitelist_account, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

The second sentence implies the use case — checking whitelisted senders for Australian routes that restrict deposits — but never states when to call this versus list_virtual_accounts or the add/update whitelist siblings, and gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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