List payout providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: 'This server never moves money,' which reassures the agent in a context full of money-moving siblings. It adds nothing about result ordering, pagination, or refresh behavior.

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 with zero padding, and the resource is front-loaded. The second sentence is a capability disclaimer rather than a continuation of the tool's own behavior, which makes it slightly less tight than an ideal single-purpose sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters, no nested objects, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it. The lack of an output schema means the return shape (provider list plus availability flag) is only implied, but for a no-arg read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

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 names the resource (payout providers) and the attribute returned (availability), so the agent knows this is a discovery/enumeration tool. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not contrast itself with siblings like list_payouts or record_payout, but the resource is 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step preceding record_payout/list_payouts. 'whether they are available' hints at the filtering purpose but does not constitute usage guidance.

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