Get account transfer payee

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by describing it as 'mainly for inspection' and noting set_transaction_transfer resolves independently. The description adds behavioral context (it's a convenience shortcut, not a necessary resolver) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place - the first defines the purpose, the second provides usage context and limitations. Exceptionally efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with one well-documented parameter and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It conveys purpose, usage context, and its relationship to sibling tools. No output schema exists, but for a simple payee-lookup tool the return value is reasonably inferable from the purpose statement.

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 coverage is 100% - the single parameter account_id is fully documented in the schema with its format, pattern, and description 'Account UUID (from get_accounts)'. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond this, but per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'The payee that represents an account in a transfer.' It precisely defines what the tool returns (a payee) and for what context (account in a transfer), distinguishing it from sibling get_payees. Very specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context of use: describes it as a 'shortcut over get_payees for the common case' and notes that set_transaction_transfer resolves it on its own, so it's 'mainly for inspection.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative to use instead of this tool beyond the sibling get_payees.

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