get_recurring_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe output format, whether it includes future/past streams, or how 'recurring' is determined. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get recurring transaction streams (subscriptions, bills, income).' It is concise, grammatically clear, and contains no filler words.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the core function. However, it could be improved by mentioning what the returned streams look like (e.g., fields, frequency), as there is no output schema to convey that. Still, for a zero-param getter, it is reasonably complete.

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 nothing to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params warrant a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to add any parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recurring transaction streams'), and provides concrete examples (subscriptions, bills, income) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_transactions, which fetch all transactions.

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 examples (subscriptions, bills, income) imply the tool is for recurring items, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it indicate exclusions (e.g., 'for general transactions, use get_transactions').

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