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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the status code meanings (100 draft, 200 open/delivered, etc.) and confirms the GET /CreditNote endpoint, but does not disclose default pagination behavior, sort order, or response characteristics beyond what the schema implies.

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 compact sentences front-load the core action and filters, then provide status semantics and the underlying endpoint. Every clause earns its place, and no relevant detail is buried.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, filterable fields, status meanings, and endpoint. It could mention the default page size or return shape, but the schema already handles limit/offset and pagination expectations.

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 nine parameters. The description adds meaningful domain context by expanding the bare status codes into human-readable labels (draft, open/delivered, partially paid, paid), which the enum alone does not convey.

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 credit notes (Gutschriften)'. The localized term and endpoint confirm the exact sevdesk entity, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools such as list_invoices or list_vouchers.

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 the verb ('List credit notes'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The status code mapping helps interpret filters but does not route the agent between tools.

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