get_recurring_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose "Read-only," which usefully signals this is a safe, non-mutating fetch. It says nothing beyond that, though — no indication of what the returned schedule details include, whether missing IDs error, or any pagination/permission behavior, and no output schema exists to cover returns.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the read-only guarantee as a compact trailing qualifier. Nothing is repeated and 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?

For a one-parameter, non-nested read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the safety profile. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing hint against the surrounding recurring-schedule siblings (search/delete/pause/resume/activate).

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% and the single id parameter is documented as "Recurring schedule ID". The description's "by ID" adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (recurring invoice schedule) and narrows scope to a single record fetched by ID, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_recurring_schedules. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent still has to infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

"by ID" implies the precondition (you already have a schedule ID), and "single" implies it is not the bulk search path. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when/when-not statement distinguishing this from search_recurring_schedules, so usage is only implied.

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