Recurring List Recurring Occurrences

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate safe, idempotent read behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format), so it meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency.

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?

Two words is too brief; it is under-specification rather than concise. The description provides almost no information and does not justify its brevity with sufficient context elsewhere.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of date ranges, the filtering options in RecurringFilterInput, or the output shape. Critical context is missing.

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 29%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description does not mention any parameters or explain their roles, especially the required start_date and end_date. The description 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?

Description 'List recurring occurrences' is vague and essentially restates the tool name without specifying what constitutes a 'recurring occurrence' or how it differs from sibling tools like 'recurring_list_recurring_streams'. The resource is unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on required parameters like start_date and end_date, and no mention of prerequisites or use cases.

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