Payee locations — List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the '[READ]' prefix only restates that. The description adds real value by explaining the data's origin (bank imports), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or scope limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its data meaning. The '[READ]' tag is redundant with readOnlyHint but costs only a few characters.

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 priority warning covers routing. The remaining gap is plan_id, undocumented in both schema and description, which leaves the agent guessing about scoping.

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% and the single parameter (plan_id, nullable, defaulted to null) is never mentioned in the description. With no schema-level documentation, the description carries the burden here and fails to explain what plan_id scopes or what happens when it is omitted.

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+resource ('List all payee locations') and disambiguates with a parenthetical defining what a payee location is ('geographic lat/lon data from bank imports'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like payee_locations_get or payee_locations_list_for_payee, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly flags priority ('Low priority: rarely useful for AI budget workflows'), which steers the agent away from over-calling and is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not name the alternative tool to use instead, so it isn't fully prescriptive.

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