recurring_charges

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

The description discloses the detection criteria (near-monthly, stable amount) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, or what the output format is. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and fails to disclose these behavioral traits.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key noun phrase, but it is a fragment lacking a verb. It is concise but under-specified, making it less useful than a complete but still brief sentence.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not state what the returned data looks like (e.g., list, count, summary), the time period covered, or how this relates to sibling tools that also deal with subscriptions.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to describe. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, this score is 4, as the description need not explain parameters that do not exist.

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 identifies the tool's focus: detecting recurring/subscription charges with specific criteria. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'List' or 'Show') and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like split_subscriptions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or why a user would choose this over similar tools such as find_anomalies or split_subscriptions.

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