recurring_invoices_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is reasonable, but the description doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating, what response structure to expect, or any auth/permission requirements. For a clearly read-oriented tool, this is adequate but leaves some uncertainty around return format and any side effects.

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, focused sentence that states the purpose and scope efficiently. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('Get detailed information') and adds the line-item template context. No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 single-record retrieval tool with 100% schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It clarifies what is returned (detailed info plus line items as template). It could benefit from stating the absence of mutation, but given the read-oriented nature implied by 'Get', this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both uuid and companyId having descriptions. The description itself mentions 'specific recurring invoice template' and 'including all line items', which maps to the uuid parameter's purpose. Since the schema already documents both parameters fully, the description adds limited additional semantic value beyond context around the template's role.

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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific recurring invoice template, including line items. It uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Get detailed information about a specific recurring invoice template'). It distinguishes from siblings like recurring_invoices_list (which lists all) and recurring_invoices_update/delete (which mutate), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The mention of line items used as a template adds useful scope detail.

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 implies a retrieval-use case ('Get detailed information') without explicitly stating when to use this versus recurring_invoices_list. It does clarify that it returns line items that serve as a template for generated invoices, which provides context. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions, and doesn't state when this should be preferred over other recurring_invoice tools.

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