memberships_recurring_services_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: pagination semantics ('one requested page') and the scope of filtering (customer-location recurring services by timestamps and IDs). It does not explain defaults like page size or active=True, but the schema covers pageSize and active defaults.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and filter scope; the second handles sibling disambiguation. There is no repetition of schema content 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?

For an 11-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the critical selection criteria: what it lists, its pagination behavior, and how it differs from the two most confusable siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from memberships_recurring_service_events_list or the recurring service types tools, but the naming and the explicit two-sibling routing make confusion unlikely.

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 64%, with the four timestamp parameters (createdBefore, createdOnOrAfter, modifiedBefore, modifiedOnOrAfter) having no schema descriptions. The description's phrase 'created or modified timestamps' at least signals that these filters exist, but it does not distinguish before/on-or-after semantics or the date-time format. It also summarizes the ID and active-state filters without adding detail beyond the schema. This is a partial compensation, not a full one.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List one requested page of customer-location recurring services') and specifies the key filter dimensions (service, membership, and location IDs, active state, created/modified timestamps). It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, memberships_recurring_services_get and memberships_types_recurring_service_items_list, so an agent can tell them apart 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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: use memberships_recurring_services_get for one known service and memberships_types_recurring_service_items_list for plan-level configuration. This states when to prefer the alternatives, which is exactly what an agent needs to choose among the memberships_* siblings.

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