Get a list of recurring invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those structured signals: the operation is paginated, returns line items, and maps to the concrete GET /invoices/recurring endpoint. No contradiction exists.

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 first sentence largely repeats the title, and the second sentence is only slightly more specific. The endpoint line is useful, but the opening adds redundancy. The description is compact but not tightly structured.

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?

The description conveys the core operation, pagination, and line-item inclusion, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and no detail about response shape, pagination defaults, or how filters combine. It is adequate but not fully complete for a 7-parameter collection tool.

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%, so parameters like page, sort, filter, records, last_edit, relation_id, and administration are already fully documented. The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a paginated list of all recurring invoices with their line items.' This clearly identifies the tool as a collection-level retrieval operation and distinguishes it from single-item siblings like get_recurring_invoice.

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 use when a paginated list of recurring invoices is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is present only implicitly through the word 'list' and 'all.'

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