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

The description extensively discloses behavioral requirements beyond the annotations: the routeToken flow, its validity, that it does not bypass preview/confirmation, the confirmWrite semantics, and the confirmCounterpartyExplicit requirement. It also clarifies that passing preflight is not confirmation and that nothing is written until confirmWrite. This is rich, non-obvious context that greatly helps the agent.

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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then logically progressing through token, preview, and confirmation requirements. Each sentence adds meaningful information; it is not padded. It could be slightly more compact, but given the complexity of the workflow, the length is justified.

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?

Given 25 parameters, 20 required, and no output schema, the description covers the critical confirmation workflow and routeToken handling well. However, it does not describe the success response format, error scenarios beyond confirmation_required, or date/format constraints. An agent may still be uncertain about what a successful confirmWrite returns or how to handle validation errors, leaving incomplete guidance for a complex mutation.

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 only 32%, and the description does not compensate by explaining most parameters. It mentions 'caller-supplied reference' and 'negative document amounts' at a high level, but does not describe key fields like companyName, customerId, acCode, dates, product, etc. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides for the few covered parameters.

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 action (creates a sales credit note) and adds specific characteristics (caller-supplied reference, reconciled negative document amounts). It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like brc_create_sales_credit_note_gen_ref or brc_update_sales_credit_note, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch creation or gen_ref tools. It discusses prerequisites (routeToken, confirmation) but not the situational context for choosing this tool over others. An agent would have to infer that this is the single-document create path.

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