Recurring List Recurring Occurrences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as the required date-window behavior, output modes, or how occurrences relate to recurring streams.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A single clause with no constraints, scope, or context does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With six parameters, two required parameters, a nested filter object, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without information about the required date range, what an occurrence is, or what the return shape will be.

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 33%, and key parameters like start_date, end_date, include_liabilities, and all nested filter fields have no descriptions. The tool description also says nothing about parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific operation ('List recurring occurrences') and resource, so an agent can tell this is a read-only listing tool. However, it doesn't distinguish occurrences from the sibling recurring_list_recurring_streams or recurring_get_recurring_summary, leaving the domain concept undefined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description doesn't explain when to choose recurring occurrences versus recurring streams or the recurring summary, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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