list_route_whitelist

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits anything beyond the data's meaning: no pagination, ordering, empty-list behavior, permission requirements, or return shape. The domain context about Australian routes is useful but is semantic framing rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the qualifying context second. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 tool with fully documented params this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should ideally say what the returned list contains (account identifiers, bank details, status) so the agent knows what it will get back.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both customerId and virtualAccountId are already documented, including the note that virtualAccountId is the AUD payment route ID. The description adds no format, constraint, or example beyond that, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the bank accounts whitelisted to pay into an AUD payment route') and the second sentence scopes it to Australian routes. It is clearly distinguishable from list_whitelisted_wallets and from the mutation siblings add_route_whitelist_account/update_route_whitelist_account, though it 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 note that 'some Australian routes only accept deposits from whitelisted source accounts' implies when an agent would care about this list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the add/update whitelist siblings for the write path.

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