getPayees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Returns all payees' without disclosing behavior such as pagination, ordering, whether deleted payees are included, or the meaning of 'all' in the context of the plan. The schema hints at change tracking via last_knowledge_of_server, but the description doesn't explain the implications of that parameter or any rate limits.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a list tool with no annotations, it lacks important context such as whether the result is paginated, how to handle large lists, or the relationship to plan_id. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Returns all payees' clearly states the verb and resource, and the tool name getPayees aligns with that. It distinguishes from siblings like getPayeeById and getPayeeLocations, though it doesn't explicitly name them. It is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from similar list tools.

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 implies usage for retrieving all payees, and the schema provides context for optional filtering via last_knowledge_of_server. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPayeeById or getPayeesByPayee (not present but similar). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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