Get Recurring Invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond stating it returns details, which is consistent. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate; no contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences (English then Spanish), each adding value. The front-loaded English sentence states purpose and list of returned fields. The Spanish translation is helpful for bilingual users but does not add redundancy. Slight length increase is justified by clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, with output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it lists the key return fields, and annotations cover behavioral traits. No missing information about permissions, rate limits, or errors is necessary for this straightforward get operation.

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% with a single required 'id' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'by ID' is redundant). Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'recurring invoice template by ID', listing the returned fields (name, frequency, next run date, recipient, line items, status). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like list_recurring_invoices (which lists templates) and create/update/delete/pause/resume tools.

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?

Although no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the context is clear: use this tool when you need full details of a specific recurring invoice template by ID. The sibling list_recurring_invoices is for listing all templates, so the usage complement is implied. No misleading guidance.

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