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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that full account numbers are not returned, which tells the agent the output is masked for security.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant return fields and the masking constraint with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does list the key fields plus the account-number masking behavior. It could mention ordering or empty-state behavior, but the essential information is present.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not a source of ambiguity. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as saved payout destinations and enumerates the returned fields, which helps distinguish it from payment-method tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not name the closest sibling, get_payment_methods, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description says what data is returned but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_payment_methods, list_payouts, or add_payout_method. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Saved payout destinations.'

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