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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List', but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or that it is safe to call without mutation risk. Annotations provide no help (all false), so the description carries the full burden. The absence of explicit behavioral disclosure is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 concise sentences. The first states the output fields, and the second explains the filters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the returned fields and all filter capabilities. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema, and pagination is implicitly handled by the limit. No critical information is missing for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'from' and 'to' form a date-period filter and that 'recipient' supports partial matching (though the schema already mentions partial match). It also summarizes the filter categories (recipient, reason, status, date) in a way that groups parameters logically, aiding an agent in selecting the right combination.

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 'List credit notes' and enumerates the fields returned (number/draft id, recipient, reason, status, issue date, total). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like credit_note_get (single note) and credit_note_summary by specifying the listing and filtering nature. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

The description explains the available filters (recipient partial match, reason, status draft/final, date period via from/to), giving clear context for when to use this tool for listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the title and sibling list make the intended use obvious.

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