recurring_invoices_list

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. It states it lists templates for the selected company and supports filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, what fields are returned, whether both active and inactive are shown by default, ordering, or scope semantics of the 'selected company' default that companyId overrides.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Compact and efficient. Could mention pagination ordering or toggle behavior but doesn't pad with unnecessary content. Appropriate length for a list-type tool.

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 list tool with 6 optional params and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. It documents the filtering dimensions (status, frequency) and implicitly pagination via schema params. Missing: default ordering, whether inactive templates are hidden by default, what 'selected company' means, and any return-field guidance. No output schema means the description should note return shape, which it doesn't.

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 each parameter (page, limit, search, isActive, companyId, frequency) having a description. The description adds the frequency and isActive filter capabilities explicitly, but doesn't add semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage. The frequency enum values are self-documented in the 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?

Description clearly states verb (list) + resource (recurring invoice templates) + scope (selected company). It distinguishes from siblings like recurring_invoices_get/create/update/delete by framing this as the list/listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling beyond the name difference, so it stops short of a 5.

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 doesn't specify when to use this vs alternatives, nor exclusions. It mentions the selected company scope implicitly, which gives some context. Siblings like recurring_invoices_get exist for single-template lookup but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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