list_recurring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact—only active recurring expenses are returned—but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or whether pagination applies. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely concise and contains no filler. It is a sentence fragment and slightly under-specified, but the brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 parameterless list operation with an output schema present, the description provides the key context: the resource is recurring expenses and the scope is active ones. It could name alternatives or clarify ordering, but the output schema covers the return contract.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for parameterless tools applies here, making the description sufficient on this dimension.

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 identifies the resource as recurring expenses and narrows the scope to active ones, which helps distinguish it from one-off expense tools like query_expenses and add_expense. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the tool name supplies the action.

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 intended use is only implied: call this when active recurring expenses are needed. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over query_expenses, search_expenses, add_recurring, or delete_recurring, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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