Get Recurring Transactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with them but adds no new behavioral information. It does not disclose the date-filtering semantics, return shape, ordering, or pagination, so the description contributes little beyond the 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity, even though it is terse.

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 low-complexity read-only tool, the optional date filters are documented and annotations cover safety. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what a returned recurring transaction contains or how results are structured, leaving some completeness gaps.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the 100% schema description 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 uses a clear action verb ('retrieve') and a specific resource ('recurring transactions'), which distinguishes it from the recurring-transaction mutation siblings and from getTransactions. It does not add scope details such as listing or date-filtering, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

The intended use is only implied by the verb and resource name; there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of getTransactions or the recurring-transaction mutation tools. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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