Standing order upcoming dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on ordering of dates, pagination, or whether dates are truncated by the count limit — so it is minimum-viable against an already-rich annotation set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the parameter detail second; nothing is wasted. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally sound.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents three of four parameters, the remaining need is small. No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned content (payment dates), so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 75% (accountUid, categoryUid, paymentOrderUid documented; count undocumented in the schema). The description fills that gap by supplying the count semantics (1 to 100, default 10), which is information the schema's minimum/maximum alone does not convey — the default in particular is new.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists), resource (standing order), and the exact payload (next payment dates), which is distinct from get_standing_order's static definition and list_standing_orders' enumeration. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'next payment dates' — an agent can infer this is for forecasting future debits rather than inspecting the order itself. However, no alternatives (get_standing_order, list_standing_orders) or conditions/preconditions are stated, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use guidance.

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