merit_get_recurring_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (POST) despite the tool name starting with 'get', and it notes the result includes rows. But it does not state read-only behavior, error conditions, or any special request requirements beyond the GUID.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint and parameter explanation each earn their place without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter get-by-GUID tool, this is largely complete: it states the resource, the required identifier, and that rows are included. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned structure could be helpful, but the description is adequate given the low complexity.

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 the description largely repeats the schema's 'Recurring invoice GUID (required)' by saying 'id is the recurring-invoice GUID'. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Merit Aktiva recurring invoice with rows'), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from list-type siblings like merit_list_recurring_invoices. Including the endpoint further disambiguates the exact API operation.

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 usage by GUID: 'id is the recurring-invoice GUID' and says 'Get one', so an agent can infer this is for fetching a single known recurring invoice. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, such as pointing to merit_list_recurring_invoices for retrieving all recurring invoices.

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