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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope ('credit-notes.read'), which is genuinely useful context not in the structured fields, but says nothing about pagination mechanics, rate limits, or result shape beyond noting paging exists.

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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the hard prerequisite. Zero filler.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage and no output schema requirement, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent this is the unfiltered lister versus the search-based siblings.

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% and all six optional parameters (embed, field, limit, order, offset, direction) are documented in detail, including the cursor semantics of offset. The description adds nothing 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List credit notes') with an added capability note ('with paging'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling sellsy_get_credit_note. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sellsy_search or the other list_* tools explicitly.

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?

'Needs credit-notes.read' is an auth prerequisite, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this over sellsy_search or sellsy_get_credit_note, nor any when-not condition.

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