Get recurring transactions

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

Annotations already establish the read-only/non-destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add a useful default behavior ('Omit both dates for the current month'), but it leaves the meaning of 'upcoming' under-defined, especially in relation to arbitrary date ranges and whether past intervals are valid. This ambiguity raises the bar for behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences and 17 words. It front-loads the resource and scope, then gives the default-usage hint, with no redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool, the description gives enough for the most common cases (all dates omitted → current month; both dates supplied → a range). However, it does not clarify valid combinations if only one date is provided, nor does it precisely define how 'upcoming' interacts with past date ranges. These gaps are significant enough that an agent could make a valid-looking but semantically incorrect call.

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 param descriptions only say 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format', giving format but no meaning. The description compensates by explaining that omitting both dates defaults to the current month, which gives an important semantic for optional parameters. It still does not specify what happens when only one date is provided, but the start/end names are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('recurring transactions'), and enumerates the specific types covered: bills, subscriptions, transfers, and income. It is distinct from the sibling get_transactions tool because of the 'recurring' and 'upcoming' qualifiers, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings like get_transactions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The scope is implied by the word 'recurring' and by the categories listed, and the 'omit both dates' sentence is a parameter-level instruction, not a tool-selection guideline.

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