ListPayees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are sorted by name, and transfer payees carry a transfer_account_id, which tells the agent how to interpret certain rows. Pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 core action and followed by the one nuance worth knowing. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining decision-relevant nuance (sort order, transfer payee shape) so an agent can call and interpret this correctly.

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 limit, plan_id, and name_contains each documented including the 'last-used' default and the 1-500 range. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a plan's payees') and immediately narrows scope with 'sorted by name'. The resource itself (payees) cleanly separates it from siblings like Ynab_ListAccounts, Ynab_ListCategories, and Ynab_ListTransactions, and the note about transfer payees adds a distinguishing detail.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating payees when it needs payee IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no mention that filtering is available via the schema's name_contains, though the plan_id field points at Ynab_ListPlans.

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