Get Recurring Invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the fields returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or response size. Given strong annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is concise, front-loads the primary action, and lists return fields. The bilingual text (English/Spanish) adds some redundancy but is justified for a multilingual audience. It is efficient overall.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and output schema present, the description adequately conveys the purpose and returned data. It could mention that the output schema details the full structure, but that is already implied. The description is complete enough given the contextual signals.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The description only restates 'by ID', adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool retrieves full details of a recurring invoice template by ID, and enumerates the returned fields (name, frequency, next run date, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, create, update, delete, pause, resume, and run.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_recurring_invoices. It does not state prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The implicit context ('by ID') is insufficient.

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