list_payee_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid plan_id). The reference to FIELDS.md is external, and the description lacks details on return format or pagination, though an output schema exists.

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?

The description is very concise: a single-line purpose followed by clear, bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given that the tool is a simple list operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. However, it omits details on pagination, sorting, or error handling, which would be helpful for a list tool. The reference to external doc is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains plan_id with a cross-tool hint (use list_plans) and details exclude_fields behavior, including defaults, empty array, and custom lists. This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'List all payee locations in a plan,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_payee_location (single location) and get_payee_locations_by_payee (filtered by payee) through the phrase 'in a plan' and the implied scope.

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?

The description does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of siblings or exclusions, such as suggesting get_payee_locations_by_payee for payee-specific queries.

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