List Recurring Templates

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

The description only says 'list,' which is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), but it does not add any behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. For example, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or that the result returns a list of templates.

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, concise sentence with only five words. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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 list tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequately complete. It could mention that the result is a list of invoice templates, but given the tool's straightforward nature, this is sufficient.

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% (both page and size have descriptions). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('recurring invoice templates') and specifies the source ('Lexware'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'recurring invoice templates,' but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get' tool (lexware_get_recurring_template) or other list tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get, or which pagination parameters are appropriate). There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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