get_payee

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

Annotations provide strong hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or specific return formats. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (2 required parameters), rich annotations (covering read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It could improve by adding usage guidelines or parameter details, but it suffices for basic understanding in this context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some meaning by implying parameters for 'budget_id' and 'payee_id' to identify a specific payee, but it doesn't explain their formats, sources, or constraints. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific payee'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_payees' (which likely lists multiple payees) or 'get_transaction' (which retrieves transaction details), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget_id and payee_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_payees' for broader queries or 'get_transaction' for related data, leaving usage context unclear.

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