Get Payee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds that the response includes a deleted flag, plus context on why the tool is useful. It does not cover not-found behavior, but for a simple getter this is a reasonable margin above baseline.

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 with zero filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the primary use cases and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides purpose, use cases, and routing. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing; not-found behavior is a minor omission for a tool this straightforward.

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%: payeeId is described as 'Payee ID' and budgetId as 'Budget ID (uses default if not provided).' The description only adds that lookup is 'by ID,' which maps to payeeId, but does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one payee by ID' and enumerates the returned fields (name, transfer_account_id, deleted flag). It also distinguishes itself from search_payees by noting that discovery should use the sibling tool, making its purpose 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?

It states explicit use cases: 'confirm a payee still exists or resolve its transfer account,' and directly names the alternative for discovery ('for discovery use search_payees'). This gives an agent clear routing criteria without needing to inspect siblings.

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