list_recurring_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List recurring invoice templates,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, return structure, or any other side effects or requirements. The minimal phrasing adds little beyond the function name.

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 a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It avoids verbosity, though it is somewhat under-specified; this is a conciseness strength rather than a weakness.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what a recurring invoice template is, how pagination works, or what the response includes. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% (both 'page' and 'per_page' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already documents the pagination parameters sufficiently.

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 'List recurring invoice templates' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('recurring invoice templates'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_invoices and list_received_invoices. It is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that one uses it to list recurring invoices, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or reference to related tools such as create_recurring_invoice or get_recurring_invoice.

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