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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully adds that the response is a 'paged envelope' and lists the concrete fields returned. That is real context beyond the annotation, though it stops short of describing default page size or total-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the endpoint, then return shape. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the fields and the paged-envelope structure. Parameter documentation is fully covered by the schema, so only minor details like pagination defaults are left implicit.

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%, with page, pageSize, query, orderBy, and companyId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a company's credit notes') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it cleanly from the invoice, bill, and payment list siblings. The underlying endpoint (GET /companies/{companyId}/data/creditNotes) reinforces exactly what is being fetched.

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?

Usage is implied clearly (retrieve credit notes for a given company), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as the generic codat_request escape hatch. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.

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