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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that the operation returns all payees as an array with specific fields, and provides useful domain context about transactions referencing payees by id. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: core listing statement, use-case guidance, and return type. Front-loaded, no filler, each sentence adds a distinct piece of actionable information.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, output fields, return type, and practical use. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The single householdId parameter is fully documented in the input schema (coverage 100%), including the omission rule. The description only refers to 'the household' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('payees'), and the exact fields returned (id, name, default category id). The word 'every' sets the all-items scope and distinguishes it from get_payee, a sibling that retrieves a single payee.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases: resolving payeeId to a human-readable name and browsing the payee directory. It gives clear context but does not name alternatives (e.g., get_payee) or state when not to use it, so not a full 5.

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