Get recurring invoice options

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting that per VAT rate the usable ledger accounts and vat_option values are returned, but this is more return-value detail than behavioral disclosure. No contradictions; the description aligns with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, then details the usage. The only minor redundancy is the first sentence repeating the tool name/title, but the rest is concise and informative. The endpoint path is included, which adds practical value without being verbose.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It states the purpose, what will be returned, and how to use it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement about the returned VAT rates, ledger accounts, and vat_options, making the tool callable without further context.

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% for the single parameter, with the description 'The client administration to act on. Only one is configured: default.' already explaining the parameter fully. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly names the resource ('recurring invoice options') and the action ('Get'), and further specifies exactly what the options consist of: VAT rates, compatible ledger accounts, and VAT options. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_sales_invoice_options or get_purchase_invoice_options, as it is scoped to recurring invoices.

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 directly states the purpose: 'Use this endpoint to determine valid combinations of vat_id, ledger_id and vat_option when creating recurring invoices.' This provides a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is precise enough for an agent to select this tool over others.

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