Payee locations — Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's '[READ]' tag merely repeats readOnlyHint and it adds no new behavioral context — no not-found/error behavior, no permission requirements, no note on whether it is scoped to plan_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the resource, with no redundant filler. The '[READ]' prefix is wasted space given readOnlyHint already conveys it, slightly costing efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core lookup is adequately conveyed. Still, the unaddressed plan_id parameter and lack of any not-found/scope behavior leave gaps for a tool whose schema provides zero description coverage.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not: it covers the required payee_location_id only implicitly ('by ID' and 'lat/lon data') while the optional plan_id parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Get a single payee location by ID') and clarifies the data is geographic lat/lon, which distinguishes it from the list siblings (payee_locations_list, payee_locations_list_for_payee). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer that 'single by ID' is the differentiator.

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 'Low priority: rarely useful for AI budget workflows' note is a genuine when-not signal that helps an agent deprioritize this tool. However, it never points to an alternative (e.g., use payee_locations_list_for_payee to enumerate) or states the condition under which this lookup *is* warranted.

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