invoiceninja_get_recurring_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'with all details', which is arguably undercut by the fields/include/response_format parameters that narrow the payload, and it says nothing about the markdown-by-default response shape. Modest added value over the annotations.

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 that identifies the resource, the lookup key, and the payload depth with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-record getter with no output schema but rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the definition is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that 'with all details' is slightly misleading given the default markdown summary and the fields/include narrowing options, which the agent must learn from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, with id, fields, include and response_format all documented in-schema (including an example hashed id and an enum explanation). The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get one recurring expense') and scopes it to a single record via 'by its hashed id', which cleanly contrasts with the list-style siblings. It never names the sibling explicitly (e.g. invoiceninja_list_recurring_expenses), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 implies the natural usage (fetch a single recurring expense when you have its id), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about when to prefer the list tool or a search instead. Implied usage only.

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