List Payee Locations

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context with '[1 API call]', hinting at performance, but doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., completeness). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise with two short phrases, front-loading the key information ('List all payee GPS locations') and including a useful performance hint ('[1 API call]'). Every word earns its place without waste.

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 simple input schema (1 parameter with 100% coverage) and read-only annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and sibling tools present, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure) and differentiation from alternatives, leaving gaps in 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 100%, with the parameter 'budget_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the tool operates on a budget, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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 all payee GPS locations') and resource ('for a budget'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payee_location' (singular) or 'get_payee_locations_for_payee', which would be needed for a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_payee_location' (for a single location) or 'get_payee_locations_for_payee' (filtered by payee), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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