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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds value by naming the fields present in each profile, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, result caps, or authentication beyond the raw endpoint reference.

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, front-loaded with the resource description. The 'Hiveage: GET /rinv' endpoint mapping is cheap and occasionally useful for debugging, though it is marginal value rather than behavioral explanation.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers resource identity, returned fields, and endpoint. The only real gap is pagination/enumeration behavior, which the schema largely compensates for.

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%, with page and per_page fully documented including allowed per_page values. The description contributes nothing about pagination parameters, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params applies.

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 a specific verb and resource (list recurring invoice profiles) and even previews the returned fields (interval, next billing date, occurrences). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like hiveage_get_recurring_invoice or hiveage_list_connection_recurring_invoices.

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?

'List recurring invoice profiles' implies usage for enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when the scoped variants (connection recurring invoices, single get) should be preferred. The agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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