beel_get_recurring_invoice_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about fiscal guardrails (AEAT invoice type and regime_key), which are important constraints for the API call. It also mentions the endpoint, aligning with the purpose. There is no contradiction with 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?

The core purpose is conveyed in two concise sentences, followed by a bullet list of guardrails. It is front-loaded with the main function and the guardrail list is relevant and not excessive. The structure is clean and efficient.

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?

This is a simple read operation with two required parameters, and the description covers what it returns (invoices with status and generation dates). Annotations cover the safety profile, and the guardrail pointer adds necessary context. The only omission is explicit pagination/ordering, which is not critical for this history retrieval. The level of detail is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%: company_id has a detailed description explaining its role and error behavior, but recurring_invoice_id has none. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. The missing parameter is inferable from the tool name, but the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('invoices previously generated from this recurring template'), including the details of status and generation dates. This distinguishes it from siblings like beel_get_recurring_invoice (which retrieves the template itself) and beel_list_recurring_invoices (which lists templates). The purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. It only describes its function and points to fiscal guardrails. The usage context is implied by the name and description but not made explicit, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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