get_recurring_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the mutual requirement of the two date parameters but omits details about what happens when both are null (e.g., returns all?), whether there is pagination, rate limiting, or if it returns definitions or occurrences of recurring transactions.

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 brief with two short sentences and a bullet list. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and parameter requirement, though the 'Args:' section could be more integrated into the prose.

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 has an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details for a 'get' operation, especially regarding defaults and edge cases, and does not clarify the nature of the returned data.

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 0%, so the description adds necessary parameter semantics: formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and the dependency between start_date and end_date. However, it does not explain what the date range filters (e.g., transactions within that period or created in that period), nor describe the return value structure.

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 retrieves recurring transactions from Monarch Money. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions by specifying 'recurring', but does not elaborate on scope or differentiate between transaction types such as definitions vs instances.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_transactions). The only usage hint is that start_date and end_date must be used together, but no context on typical scenarios or prerequisites.

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