Recurring Get Recurring Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and non-mutating. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as the shape or aggregation of the summary, or any side effects. The description is essentially redundant with the 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 only two words, which is far too concise for a tool with 6 parameters and a complex nested filter object. While conciseness is valued, this amount of under-specification harms usability more than it benefits brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—6 parameters, a nested filter object with multiple fields, required date range, and no output schema—the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the summary contains, how it aggregates data, or how it relates to other recurring tools.

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 only 33% schema description coverage (only 'fields' and 'output_mode' have descriptions), the description should compensate by explaining the purpose of key parameters like start_date, end_date, and filters. It does none of this, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter names.

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 summary' is extremely vague and barely adds value over the tool name. It does not specify what kind of summary (e.g., aggregated recurring transaction data) or how it differs from similar tools like recurring_get_recurring_stream, recurring_list_recurring_streams, or recurring_list_recurring_occurrences.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The sibling tools in the recurring group have more descriptive names, but the description fails to differentiate.

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