List payees

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the transfer_account_id concept and how payees relate to accounts in transfers, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't describe return format, ordering, pagination, or whether it returns all payees by default.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds clarifying domain context about transfers. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional boolean parameter and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains the key domain concept (transfer_account_id) that helps the agent understand both the output and the only_transfers parameter. The lack of output schema is acceptable for a simple listing.

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% including a clear description of only_transfers. The description adds minor value by explaining the underlying concept (transfer_account_id) that relates to the parameter's meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists payees with their IDs via 'Payees with their IDs.' The verb 'List' appears in the title and 'get' in the name. It adds useful context about payees having transfer_account_id, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the title 'List payees'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only parameter, only_transfers, is self-explanatory via schema. The description gives no context about when to use this vs get_account_transfer_payee or other siblings, though the sibling set makes it reasonably clear this is a listing operation.

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