get_recurring

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output nature (expected amounts, frequency, match status) and the default period behavior when dates are omitted. It does not describe security implications or response format, but for a read-only retrieval tool, these disclosures are meaningful and exceed the minimum.

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 three short sentences, each adding necessary information: what it does, what it shows, and the default behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant phrases or filler.

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 only two optional date parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality well: what resource is retrieved, what information is returned, and the default period. It leaves some ambiguity around terms like 'match status' and does not detail response structure, but overall is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for start_date and end_date, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by explaining that omitting dates defaults to the current month, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the behavior and relationships between the parameters.

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 it retrieves recurring items (subscriptions, bills, income) and specifies what it shows (expected amounts, frequency, match status). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_summary.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning recurring items and the period, but it does not explicitly state alternative tools to use instead, nor does it provide exclusions. It does give a practical usage note about defaulting to the current month without dates, but lacks broader guidance on choosing between this and related tools.

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