Get recurring sales invoice

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful return-content context (includes lines and next invoice date), but it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: it leads with the action and resource, then gives the most useful returned details. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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 simple read-only get-by-id tool, the description plus annotations and schema are mostly sufficient. It would be more complete with a pointer to list_recurring_sales_invoices or explicit not-found behavior, but those are minor gaps given the low complexity of the operation.

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 coverage is only 50%: the required recurring_sales_invoice_id has no schema description, and the tool description does not clarify how to obtain or format it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (recurring invoice schedule), and a singular scope that distinguishes it from list_recurring_sales_invoices. It also names key returned content (lines, next invoice date), so an agent can identify what this tool does at a glance.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_recurring_sales_invoices, nor how to discover a valid recurring_sales_invoice_id before calling. The description simply says what the tool does, leaving usage context to be inferred from sibling tool names.

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