get_payees

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds that it lists all payees in the budget and that IDs are included, providing some extra context about scope and output. However, it does not describe pagination, ordering, or exact response structure, which the absence of an output schema leaves partly uncovered.

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 sentence with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('List all payees'), and the added clause explains why the tool is useful without repeating the schema or annotations.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the scope ('all payees in the budget') and the key output detail ('their IDs'), matching the safety profile already provided by annotations. No additional details are essential for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all payees in the budget'), and the purpose ('seeing available payees and their IDs'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_payee, update_payee, and delete_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?

The phrase 'Useful for seeing available payees and their IDs' gives a clear use case, indicating when an agent should use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for selection among the large sibling list.

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