bokio_get_credit_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is 'as Bokio returns it,' signaling a raw vendor-shaped payload rather than a normalized one, but it discloses nothing further about payload structure or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action first and the sibling routing second. Zero filler.

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 single-record getter with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is close to complete: it names the identifier source via schema, and 'as Bokio returns it' warns that the payload is vendor-native even though there is no output schema. A brief note on the returned resource shape would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (companyId default behavior, creditNoteId source and not-found error) are already documented in structured form. The description adds only the phrase 'by id' and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get one credit note by id') and disambiguates from the two closest siblings by noting the PDF variant belongs to bokio_download_credit_note. An agent can distinguish this from bokio_list_credit_notes and the download tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to bokio_download_credit_note when a PDF is wanted, which is the main usage fork. It does not spell out when to prefer this over list_credit_notes, but that distinction is obvious from the singular/plural naming.

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