search_recurring_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does at least declare 'Read-only,' which is the single most important behavioral fact for an unannotated tool. It says nothing about pagination semantics, result caps, or permissions, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 and the definitional parenthetical, then the read-only reassurance. No filler or repetition.

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 a fully documented 10-parameter schema and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials for a search tool plus the read-only guarantee. It omits how the many filters interact or pagination behavior, but nothing critical to selection is missing.

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 10 well-documented parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no filter syntax, combination rules, or sorting hints beyond what the schema provides.

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 (search) and resource (recurring invoice schedules) and even glosses the domain concept as 'templates that auto-generate invoices on a cadence,' which removes ambiguity about what is being searched. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling retrieval tools like get_recurring_schedule, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'with filters' and 'Read-only' imply this is the list/browse operation rather than a fetch-by-id or mutation, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_recurring_schedule or the pause/resume/delete siblings. Usage is inferable from context, not spelled out.

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