List Payees

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

The description adds the constraint '[1 API call]', which is useful context beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint: true). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what 'last-used' means for budget_id, leaving gaps in transparency despite the annotations covering safety.

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—just one sentence with a bracketed note—and front-loaded with the core action. Every element ('[1 API call]', 'List all payees for a budget') serves a clear purpose without waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation), 100% schema coverage, and annotations indicating safety, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output (no schema provided) and behavioral context like pagination. It's adequate for basic use but could be more informative for an agent handling nuanced scenarios.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters (budget_id and last_knowledge_of_server). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the purpose of 'last_knowledge_of_server' or clarifying 'last-used', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage 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 payees') and resource ('for a budget'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payee' (which retrieves a single payee) or 'list_payee_transactions' (which lists transactions for a payee), though the distinction is somewhat implied by the verb 'list all'.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, stating only that it lists payees for a budget. It doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_payee' (for a single payee) or 'list_payee_transactions' (for payee-specific data), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context largely implied.

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