search_credit_memos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are paginated and that this is a listing operation (implying read-only), but it says nothing about permissions, default sort order, or what happens with no filters (full result set?). Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by capability and return shape. Little waste, though the filter enumeration is largely redundant with the schema.

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, 12-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering breadth, and pagination. It would be stronger with a note on what a returned record contains or the default ordering, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 12 parameters are already documented in the schema with types and examples. The description's enumerated filter list (customer, status, reason, date range, amount range, remaining balance) mirrors those fields without adding format, default, or combination semantics beyond what the schema 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 credit memos (AR)') plus the system of record, so the agent knows this is a read/search operation over credit memos. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_credit_memo (single-record fetch), leaving that distinction to be inferred from the verb.

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?

The description implies usage by listing the filter dimensions available, which tells the agent this is the tool for scoped credit-memo retrieval, but it never states when to use this versus get_credit_memo or create_credit_memo, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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