Get payee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the return scope ('and its accounts'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown UID, so it adds modest value.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose and roughly what comes back (payee plus its accounts). It omits failure behavior (invalid or unknown payeeUid) and any note on how this relates to the many sibling payee tools, so it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% and the single payeeUid parameter is documented with its UUID pattern in the schema itself. The description adds no format, source, or lookup hints beyond 'one saved payee'. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden entirely.

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+resource ('Gets one saved payee') and scopes it to a single record, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_payees. It also notes the payload includes the payee's accounts. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after list_payees, or how it differs from list_payee_payments, get_payee_image, or other payee-adjacent siblings. The singular 'one saved payee' hints at lookup semantics but no condition or alternative is named.

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