bokio_list_credit_notes

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already cover the safety profile and network behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that results are paged and filterable via a raw query, but says nothing about ordering, result bounds, or error behavior; an output schema covers the return shape.

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, no redundancy: the core capability first, the sibling disambiguation second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. Its only real omission is disambiguation from the get/download credit-note siblings.

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%, so page, pageSize, query, and companyId are already fully documented, including the && syntax example and the BOKIO_COMPANY_ID fallback. The description adds only the generic mention of paging and a raw query filter, so the baseline 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+resource (list credit notes) and even gives the Swedish domain term 'kreditfakturor', which helps agents map to the Bokio API. It explicitly separates itself from bokio_list_invoices, though it does not distinguish against bokio_get_credit_note or bokio_download_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 sentence 'Customer invoices are listed by bokio_list_invoices' is useful routing, but it only rules out a different resource, not the other credit-note tools (get/download). There is no guidance on when to use the query filter vs. plain paging, or on defaults.

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