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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the returned field set and the HTTP endpoint but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or result ordering beyond what the schema provides.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded and the endpoint follows compactly. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and status values, which compensates well. It falls slightly short by omitting any note on pagination behavior or result limits, though those are largely covered by the schema parameters.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself; the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. filter syntax or date semantics) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List') and resource ('credit notes'), and enumerates returned fields including the status value set. It's clearly distinguishable from single-record tools like invoiced_get_credit_note by name and description, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with it.

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 by 'List' and the GET endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use context, no mention of alternatives (e.g. invoiced_get_credit_note), and no stated prerequisites. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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