Payee locations — List for payee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the '[READ]' tag, the lat/lon nature of the payload, and a priority hint — some value, but no detail on pagination, auth, or result volume.

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 action and scope, with the caveat trailing deliberately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is the undocumented plan_id parameter, which an agent cannot resolve from description or schema.

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. 'Specific payee' loosely implies payee_id, but plan_id is never mentioned and no format or filtering semantics are given for either parameter.

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 all locations') scoped to 'a specific payee', with the parenthetical clarifying the data is geographic lat/lon. The scope phrase implicitly separates it from the sibling payee_locations_list, though that sibling is not named.

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?

Provides an explicit negative-use signal ('Low priority: rarely useful for AI budget workflows'), which is genuine when-not-to-use guidance. It does not, however, route the agent to a better alternative for the task it is discouraging.

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