Recurring Get Recurring Summary

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the read-only 'get' operation. It does not disclose what the summary contains, how filters affect aggregation, or that start_date and end_date are required. There is no annotation contradiction, but the description provides no extra transparency value.

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 only five words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It restates the tool's name without front-loading any useful decision-making information.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and several closely related recurring-tool siblings, this description is materially incomplete. It does not explain the expected return shape, what 'summary' means, or how the date range and optional filters shape the result. An agent would have to rely almost entirely on the schema and tool name.

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 only 40%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented start_date, end_date, and filters parameters, but it says nothing about parameters at all. Only fields and output_mode have schema descriptions; the description contributes zero parameter guidance.

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 states a verb ('get') and a resource ('recurring summary'), but 'recurring summary' is vague: it does not specify what is being summarized or how this differs from sibling tools like recurring_list_recurring_streams or recurring_get_recurring_stream. Sibling differentiation must be inferred from the tool name rather than the description.

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 the closely related recurring read tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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