q402_recurring_fires

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only and non-mutating nature ('does not trigger or modify anything'), mentions authentication via API key, and describes the return payload structure including the partial-failure flag. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage prompts, auth, and return details. The auth sentence is somewhat generic but still earns its place for transparency. No superfluous content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (up to 50 entries, newest first, with timestamp, USD amount, tx hashes, partial-failure flag). It also covers prerequisites and behavior, making it complete for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds little beyond schema, except the note that ruleId comes from q402_recurring_list, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads past-fire history of a recurring-payment rule, which is a specific verb (read) and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like q402_recurring_list or q402_recurring_create by focusing on historical execution data, not configuration.

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?

Explicitly lists example user queries that should trigger this tool ('when was the last fire?', 'did Friday's payout go out?') and instructs to call q402_recurring_list first to obtain ruleId. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and prerequisite steps.

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