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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's only behavioral addition ('Paged') is fully covered by the page/per_page schema fields. It discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, result ordering defaults, or what a page contains.

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 tightly worded sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The status enum values and the 'Gutschriften' gloss mildly duplicate structured data, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 14 fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint covering safety, the schema carries most of the load, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a page of credit notes contains or how paging terminates. It is adequate but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.

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 14 parameters, including date formats, status pattern and pagination. The description's summary of filterable dimensions (client, status, date range, text) adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (List) plus specific resource (credit notes) with the German term 'Gutschriften' for disambiguation, and it enumerates the filter dimensions. It is distinguishable from the many list_* siblings by resource name, though it does not explicitly contrast with billomat_list_invoices or billomat_get_credit_note.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use billomat_get_credit_note for a single record). The filter list hints at capabilities but not at selection between sibling tools.

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