recurring_invoices_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the company-scoping context and the available filter dimensions, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or what the templates include.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation and scope front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is largely a restatement of schema parameters, which slightly reduces its value.

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?

A read-only list tool with complete parameter documentation and full annotation coverage has little left to explain, and the description covers scope and filtering. It would be marginally better with a note on pagination/result ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and every parameter including the frequency enum is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of active-status and frequency filtering merely restates two schema parameters and adds no semantics for search, page/limit, or the companyId override.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("List recurring invoice templates") with scope ("for the selected company"), which distinguishes it from singular siblings like recurring_invoices_get or mutation siblings like recurring_invoices_toggle. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative list-style siblings (invoices_list, proforma_invoices_list), but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

"Supports filtering by active status and frequency" implies the useful call contexts, and "selected company" implies the default-scoping behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-get guidance, and no mention that recurring_invoices_get is the right call for a single template.

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