wafeq_revenue_recognitions_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description only repeats 'READ-ONLY' and restates the GET endpoint, adding no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default page size, result ordering, or filtering semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short but redundant: 'List revenue recognitions' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of revenue recognitions' convey the same idea. The front-loaded READ-ONLY/GET line is useful, but the repeated phrasing does not earn its place.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is too minimal. It omits semantics for filters like duration, start/end date ranges, recognition_type, and pagination defaults, leaving the agent to guess.

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 only 33%, with duration, date filters, and recognition_type undocumented. The description provides zero explanation of any parameter, so the agent receives no additional semantic help beyond the sparse 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List revenue recognitions' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of revenue recognitions.' It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling retrieve endpoint, but the list vs. single-item distinction is evident from the name and wording.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this list endpoint instead of related endpoints like revenue_recognitions_retrieve, revenue_recognitions_destroy, or the preview/end_early actions. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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