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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination semantics, data volume, or company connection requirements, beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single concise sentence without repetition or filler. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity, providing little substance for an agent to act on.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description, the agent lacks important contextual guidance about pagination, filtering, ordering, or the distinction from batch and single-get variants. The annotations cover safety, but not the operational context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate by clarifying any parameters. Pagination fields like top, page, skip, and pageSize are left without parameter-specific explanation in the description. The schema already covers some properties, but the description adds no value beyond what the input schema provides.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Lists BRC sales credit notes.' This unambiguously identifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like brc_get_sales_credit_note or brc_batch_sales_credit_notes, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of batch retrieval, single-record retrieval, or filtering scenarios that would help an agent select this tool over siblings such as brc_batch_sales_credit_notes.

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