merit_list_recurring_invoice_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only list operation, explicitly says there are no filters, and reveals the edge-case behavior: 'Empty when none are open.' It also exposes the REST endpoint. It doesn't mention response format or side effects, but the simple list semantics are adequately conveyed.

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 with zero wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and the empty-case behavior. No redundant phrasing or 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the operation, endpoint, and empty behavior. It does not detail the fields of the returned addresses, but given the tool's simplicity and the self-explanatory name, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the empty schema with 'No filters,' explaining why no arguments are needed. This adds a small but meaningful confirmation beyond the schema itself.

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: 'List client addresses for open Merit Aktiva recurring invoices'. It also names the underlying endpoint, making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merit_list_recurring_invoices, which list the invoices themselves rather than their addresses.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need client addresses tied to open recurring invoices. It also states 'No filters,' signaling that this is an unfiltered bulk retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow scope and unique resource make the intended usage obvious.

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