Create Recurring Invoice

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by noting that the first invoice is generated on the next scheduled run date. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like overwrite rules, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 sentences with a concrete example. Bilingual text adds length but maintains clarity. No unnecessary words, though the example could be more compact. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and a key behavioral note. For a creation tool with 7 parameters, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention uniqueness constraints on templateName.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description provides an example with values and bilingual explanations, but this adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states it creates a new recurring invoice template, with specific verbs ('Create') and resource ('recurring invoice template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice (one-off) and update_recurring_invoice (modification).

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 description implies usage for setting up recurring billing templates and lists required parameters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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