expenses_recurring

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what the output format is. The only hint is that it involves 'annualized cost', but it never clarifies the tool's behavior 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?

The description is a single sentence and concise in length, but it is not structured to convey the tool's function. It lacks an action verb and does not front-load the purpose. The sentence reads as a definition of recurring charges rather than a tool description, so it fails to be useful despite its brevity.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of guidance. It is incomplete because it does not state what the tool returns or how an agent should invoke it. An agent has no idea what to expect from this tool, making it inadequate for even a simple call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema fully covers parameter requirements. Per the calibration baseline for zero parameters, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 lacks a verb and does not state what action the tool performs. It describes a category of charges ('Charges repeating...') rather than an operation such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. This is more than a tautology but still vague; an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns recurring expenses, creates them, or computes annualized costs.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like expenses_spend, expenses_outstanding, or reconcile. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description gives no hint of how it differs from its peers.

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