List recurring sales invoices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavior: only active schedules are returned unless the filter overrides this default. This is useful context that is not present in the annotations or visible from the tool name alone.

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 with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loded, and the only additional sentence adds a meaningful default-behavior caveat. Nothing in the description is redundant or wasteful.

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 list action, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the resource and the active-only default, and the schema documents parameters. However, with no output schema and no guidance on how to choose this over sibling list/get tools, the description is only minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.

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 description does not discuss parameters, but the input schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, including detailed guidance on filter behavior. The one behavioral note about active-only schedules is reflected even more precisely in the filter parameter's schema description, so the description adds no extra parameter information.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('recurring invoice schedules'), which distinguishes it from regular sales invoice lists and from the singular get_recurring_sales_invoice tool. The phrase 'schedules' also clarifies that this returns schedule definitions, not generated invoices.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as list_sales_invoices or get_recurring_sales_invoice. The only usage-related note is the default active-only behavior, which is more of a behavior disclosure than a selection guideline.

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