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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that both draft and published credit notes are included, which is a small useful scope detail. It does not discuss pagination, filtering behavior, result ordering, or any other operational detail.

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 short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is a sentence fragment with no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually does.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify that it returns a paginated collection and how it relates to bokio_get_credit_note. It provides almost none of that context, leaving the schema and annotations to carry nearly all the burden.

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 input schema already documents page, query, and pageSize thoroughly, including filter syntax and examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title: 'Credit notes (draft or published).' It does not state a verb such as list, though the tool name supplies that context. It adds only a minor scope note about draft/published status and does not distinguish this tool from bokio_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention bokio_get_credit_note or explain that this is the collection-listing counterpart. An agent gets no help deciding between listing credit notes and fetching a single credit note.

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