List payees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are sorted by name and soft-deleted payees are omitted, which an agent needs to interpret an empty or short result set. It leaves paging behavior implicit, but the schema carries that.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the domain gloss, then the routing advice and the exclusion note. Every sentence carries information the agent could not get from structured fields.

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 a 2-parameter schema at full coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the only gaps left are return format and pagination mechanics, both already structured. The description covers the remaining semantic questions (ordering, deleted records, when to use a sibling instead).

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 both limit and offset are fully documented there with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about pagination strategy or page-size tradeoffs, 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 and resource ('List the plan's payees') plus the ordering ('sorted by name'), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It also defines what a payee is, removing ambiguity about the resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from find_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?

Names the alternative tool (find_payee) and the exact condition that selects it ('to find a particular payee'), calling it 'much faster than paging through this list'. It also states the enumeration rule that deleted payees are excluded, so the agent knows what this list will and won't contain.

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