xero_list_credit_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, which is somewhat transparent, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or filtering is supported, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are minimally addressed.

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 short but not effectively concise; it includes routing details that are likely redundant under typical tool invocation and fails to present essential usage information first. The brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, expected input, or behavior of the tool. An agent has no context to correctly format the 'arguments' parameter or interpret the result, making the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.

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 only parameter, 'arguments', is a JSON string with default '{}' and no description of expected keys or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful guidance. The agent cannot determine how to populate this parameter.

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 repeats the tool name 'list_credit_notes' and identifies it as a Xero connector operation, but does not explain what credit notes are or what the tool returns. It does not distinguish from sibling list tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_payments, leaving the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Siblings include many Xero list tools, but the description offers no differentiation.

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