invoiceninja_list_recurring_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: automatic resolution of related names (client_name) and the exact accepted key/value formats for extra_filters. It does not describe pagination limits or result size, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into scannable lines for client_status, extra_filters keys, and the related-tool pointer. Dense but every line carries operational information; only the client_status line duplicates the schema description.

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 an 11-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameter semantics and the follow-up tool. Response shape is left to the schema's response_format field, which is acceptable given no output schema exists, but nothing explains default ordering or pagination behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: the schema for extra_filters explicitly defers ('see the tool description'), and the description supplies the allowed keys, the frequency_id enumeration (1 daily … 10 annually) and the differing date-range separators for next_send_between vs created_between/updated_between. It also restates client_status values. It does not add anything for the remaining nine parameters, so not a 5.

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 ('List recurring invoices from Invoice Ninja') plus the supported operations (filtering, sorting, pagination). It is clearly separable from invoiceninja_list_invoices and invoiceninja_get_recurring_invoice, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use invoiceninja_get_recurring_invoice with an id from this list for the full record,' which tells the agent when this list tool is the right entry point vs. the get tool. It gives no exclusion guidance (e.g. when to prefer invoiceninja_search), so it stops short of a 5.

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