invoiceninja_get_recurring_invoice

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 that the full record including line items is returned, which is useful context, but it omits that response_format defaults to markdown (a summary, not the full detail) and says nothing about errors for bad ids.

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 zero filler that puts the verb, resource, and identifier form first.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description conveys the key payload expectation (all details, line items included) and annotations cover safety. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the default markdown summary versus json full-data mode.

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%, so every parameter (id, fields, include, response_format) is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only reinforces the hashed-id requirement and line-item inclusion, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 (Get), resource (one recurring invoice), and identifier form (hashed id), which cleanly separates it from invoiceninja_list_recurring_invoices and invoiceninja_get_invoice. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so a small differentiation gap remains.

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 only implied: fetch a single recurring invoice when you already hold its hashed id. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on preferring list_recurring_invoices for retrieval by other criteria.

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