teamleader_credit_notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the list action and filters, but omits pagination behavior, response format, and any side effects. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about how the tool behaves, especially regarding page/page_size parameters.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It clearly front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only explains the filtering options and omits pagination defaults, response shape, or how to navigate results. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 already provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage), including page_size max and filter IDs. The description adds the context that invoice and department filters are optional, but does not explain page or page_size semantics, leaving the schema to handle most of the burden. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('credit notes'), and defines the optional filters by invoice and department. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'teamleader_credit_notes_info' which likely fetches a single credit note.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to list credit notes) and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like teamleader_credit_notes_info or say when not to use it. There is no clear exclusions or alternative guidance.

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