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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a GET operation (implying read-only), that a company must be explicitly provided, and that query fields are flat, but it does not cover error behavior, permissions beyond company scoping, or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint and key constraints. "Fixed JSON" and "Flat query fields" are slightly jargon-like but do not create significant waste.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required company, and query-filter reference. It still omits explicit sibling guidance and sufficient query parameter detail given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies creditNoteId as a path parameter, company_name as required, and query as flat filter fields routed through describe_nextesy_operation, but it does not explain query object structure or company_name format.

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 HTTP verb and resource path, making clear that this retrieves a single credit note by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with list_credit_notes, but the {creditNoteId} path distinguishes it from listing tools.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ("Explicit company required") and points to describe_nextesy_operation for filter details, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_credit_notes or when not to use it.

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