get_recurring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the get operation without adding information about read-only guarantees, return values, error handling, or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and input requirement. Every word contributes value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the required input and implies the returned object. It omits response shape and not-found behavior, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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?

The schema has one undocumented string parameter 'id' (0% coverage). The phrase 'by ID' adds minimal meaning by clarifying that the parameter is the identifier of the recurring transaction, but it does not provide format, example, or behavior details beyond the parameter name.

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 names a specific operation ('Get'), a precise resource ('recurring transaction'), and a clear scope ('single ... by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_recurring and get_transaction.

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 'single ... by ID' phrasing implies the tool should be used when the agent already knows a specific recurring transaction ID, but there is no explicit direction about when to prefer it over list_recurring or when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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