get_standing_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Shows', and gives insight into the return type (planned future transactions). However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose error handling, permissions, or other side effects.

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 appropriately sized, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, then a brief example of what it returns, and a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter documentation is 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters effectively. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. However, it lacks some details like how filters combine, default ordering, or timezone handling, leaving minor gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters in the Args section. It provides types, defaults, and concrete examples (e.g., 'name: use prefix: eq., contains., contains-i.', 'created_at: gte.2025-01-01'), adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get recurring/scheduled payments (standing orders)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on standing orders, and further clarifies with examples like 'bills, subscriptions, salary'.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool by explaining it shows planned future transactions (bills, subscriptions, salary). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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