merit_list_recurring_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently exposes the HTTP method/endpoint, the meaning of dateType, and the 180-day maximum period. The word 'List' also implies a read-only operation, though pagination and output format are not described.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives the key constraints and dateType definitions. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 list operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it names the endpoint, required date semantics, and the critical 180-day bound. An output schema is absent, so a brief note on the return shape or pagination would improve completeness, but it is not essential for making a correct call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that the period refers to the next-invoice date and by restating the dateType semantics in prose, which helps an agent interpret periodStart and periodEnd correctly.

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's function: 'List Merit Aktiva recurring invoices'. It also includes the exact API endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. The verb 'List' distinguishes it from sibling tools like merit_get_recurring_invoice or merit_create_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 this tool is for listing recurring invoices over a period, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over merit_get_recurring_invoice. The 180-day limit and dateType options provide useful boundary conditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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