invoiceninja_get_credit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral note is that all details including line items are returned, which is modest but useful context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping qualifier 'with all details (line items included)' is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though it could carry one more clause of routing guidance at no cost.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description signals the return shape ('all details, line items included'), and the schema plus annotations fully cover the input and safety profile. For a simple single-record getter, this is close to sufficient; only the routing-to-list-tools gap remains.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented in the schema itself (including the hashed id example and the fields/include/response_format semantics). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (one credit), and scopes it to a single record by hashed id, which implicitly distinguishes it from invoiceninja_list_credits. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, so it lands just under the top mark.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to alternatives such as invoiceninja_list_credits for browsing multiple credits. Usage is only inferable from the verb and the singular object.

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