Recurring Get Recurring Stream

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'get'—no mention of output shape, return values, permissions, or side effects—so it contributes nothing beyond what the annotations already provide.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and redundant with the title. The single sentence does not earn its place because it adds no new information; this brevity is a symptom of missing content rather than effective conciseness.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and several similar recurring domain siblings, a one-sentence description is insufficient to orient an agent. It omits what a recurring stream is, which output modes are relevant, and how this tool differs from recurring_get_recurring_summary or recurring_list_recurring_streams. The annotations cover the safety profile but not the operational context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, fields and output_mode are documented in the schema but reccurring_id and include_liabilities are not. The description provides no compensating detail, so an agent gains no additional understanding of the parameters from the description itself.

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 'Get recurring stream.' simply restates the tool name and title without explaining what a recurring stream is or what data is returned. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like recurring_get_recurring_summary or recurring_list_recurring_streams, making it tautological rather than informative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recurring_list_recurring_streams or recurring_get_recurring_summary. The only implied context is the singular 'stream' and the required recurring_id in the schema, but the description itself provides no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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