Get Credit Note

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

The description correctly implies a read-only operation, matching the annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as error conditions or ID format requirements. With annotations already covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about the return value (what fields are included), which would be helpful for agent decision-making. Given the complexity, a score of 3 is fair.

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 input schema has 100% described coverage (the 'id' parameter has a description). The tool description merely repeats 'by ID' without adding formatting, validation, or source details. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves a specific credit note by ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'credit note' are explicit, and the phrase 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_get_credit_notes that likely list all credit notes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other related 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that siigo_get_credit_notes is for listing, or that siigo_get_credit_note_pdf is for PDF retrieval. The agent must infer usage from names alone.

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