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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. A list call is implicitly read-only and safe, but the description doesn't disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit, or permission requirements.

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 no wasted words, front-loading first what is returned and then how to narrow it. Slightly list-like but well structured and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and the filterable dimensions. It is close to complete for a filtered-list tool; only ordering and pagination semantics are left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with types, enums, and the "part of the name is enough" matching rule. The description largely restates these filters, adding no syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("List credit notes") and it enumerates the fields returned (number/draft id, recipient, reason, status, issue date, total), so the agent knows this is a multi-record query. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like credit_note_get or credit_note_summary, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 details the filter dimensions (recipient, reason, status, issue-date range), which implies how the tool is used, but never states when to prefer it over credit_note_get or credit_note_summary. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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