get_adjustment_credit_note

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It explains that the link expires after an hour, which is crucial operational information not captured in annotations. It also clarifies that credit note PDFs are created for refunds and credits as adjustment records, providing context about when these documents exist. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 perfectly structured and concise with three focused sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides context about when credit notes are created, and the third delivers crucial behavioral information about link expiration. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with good annotations and complete schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about the tool's purpose, usage timing, and link expiration behavior. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't specify the exact format of the returned link, but this is mitigated by the clear behavioral context provided.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve a link to a credit note PDF') and resource ('for an adjustment from Paddle'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on credit note PDF retrieval rather than general adjustment data (like 'get_adjustment' or 'list_adjustments'), and explains the context of credit notes being created for refunds and credits.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Return this if record is needed to be given to the customer immediately after the adjustment is created'), which helps differentiate it from other adjustment-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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