List payees

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: the default-withUsage enrichment, which fields appear, and the domain rule that transferAccountId payees are transfer counterparts that must not be merged. It omits volume/pagination behavior for a potentially large enumeration.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the enrichment payload, then the safety constraint. Every sentence carries information; none is filler.

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 responsibly explains the returned fields and the default behavior, and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, lacking only scale/pagination notes and whether results span all accounts.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents withUsage's meaning, default, and the speed tradeoff. The description goes beyond it by explaining why the enriched fields matter (enabling cleanup/merge decisions), giving the parameter semantic weight rather than just repeating the schema.

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 every payee") and immediately details what the returned set contains, so an agent knows this is the enumeration tool rather than a lookup or mutation tool. It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_payee, update_payee, and merge_payees.

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?

Gives clear context for use (cleanup/merge decisions, picking the busiest payee as merge target) and an explicit exclusion (payees with transferAccountId must never be merged). It stops short of naming sibling tools such as find_duplicate_payees or merge_payees as the follow-on alternatives.

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