Recurring List Recurring Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, or what fields are returned by default). It is adequate given annotations but still minimal.

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 three words, which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids tautology, it does not add enough value to earn its place; it is too brief to be helpful.

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 has 6 parameters including a complex RecurringFilterInput, output modes, and flags, the description is entirely insufficient. It does not mention filtering capabilities, output modes, or default behavior. Annotations provide some context but the description is not complete enough.

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% (only 'fields' and 'output_mode' have descriptions). The description does not explain the purpose of filters, session_path, include_pending, include_liabilities, or the RecurringFilterInput structure. 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?

The description 'List recurring streams' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is generic. Among sibling tools like 'recurring_get_recurring_stream' and 'recurring_get_recurring_summary', it does not differentiate itself beyond the word 'list'. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus other recurring tools like 'recurring_get_recurring_stream' or 'recurring_get_recurring_summary'. There is no mention of filters, output modes, or typical use cases.

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