books_get_credit_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a specific credit note', leaving out critical behaviors such as return format, error handling (e.g., not found), and the read-only nature (which is obvious by 'get' but not explicitly stated). The lack of any caveats or response details makes this insufficient.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to provide more context about the expected return value and possible edge cases. It only states the action, without explaining what the agent receives or how to interpret the response. The simplicity of the tool mitigates this somewhat, but the absence of return and error information makes it incomplete.

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?

The schema shows 'creditnote_id' as a required string, and the description's phrase 'by ID' clarifies that this parameter identifies which credit note to fetch. While the property name is self-explanatory, the description does add the semantic context that the ID corresponds to a credit note within the Books module, providing some meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves a single credit note by its ID, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource 'specific credit note' and scope 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'books_get_credit_notes' (which likely lists credit notes) and other get-by-ID tools.

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 when a specific credit note ID is known and the full record is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over the plural credit note listing tool, so it remains at the implied level.

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