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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the 40-per-page ceiling, the exact return shape ({ results, count, has_more, next_cursor }), and the backing endpoint GET /v1/recurring. It omits rate limits and sort/default behaviors, which are left to the schema.

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?

Three tight clauses: what it lists, what it filters by, page ceiling, return shape, endpoint. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the 'GET /v1/recurring' fragment is largely redundant given the name and openWorldHint.

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 9-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return keys and page cap that the structured fields do not. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge behavior (empty filters, default sort) is unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with type, bounds and semantics. The description echoes the filter set but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List recurring bookings'), adds a clarifying synonym ('repeating job series'), and enumerates the filterable dimensions. It is clearly distinct from get_recurring_booking, though it never explicitly contrasts with the similar-looking list_jobs sibling.

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 filter list implies when the tool is useful (filtered browsing of recurring series by status/customer/assignee/territory/date), and 'Max 40 per page' hints at pagination. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_recurring_booking or list_jobs, and no note on behavior when no filters are supplied.

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