get_recurring_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only notes default behavior (current month) but does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination limits, or other side effects. The update description is 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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and default behavior. No extraneous words or redundant information. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of transactions). It does not. Additionally, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_subscription_details'. The description is too minimal to be fully contextually complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (start_date, end_date) with format hints. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the default timeframe. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves upcoming recurring transactions (subscriptions, bills). The verb 'get' and resource 'recurring transactions' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transactions' by specifying 'upcoming recurring'.

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 mentions defaulting to the current month, which implies when no dates are provided, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_subscription_details' or 'get_transactions'. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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