fiken_get_credit_note_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose response format, error cases, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description should provide extra context but fails to do so.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the intent. However, the brevity sacrifices important details, making it too minimal for the parameter context.

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 description lacks completeness given the tool's simplicity. It does not specify how to identify the draft (draftId), nor does it address potential error states or success indicators. In the context of multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficient for effective selection.

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 description does not explain the only parameter, draftId. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about how to obtain or use draftId. The agent is left to infer its meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 'Returns a specific credit note draft' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (credit note draft). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fiken_get_invoice_draft, the resource type is uniquely specified. The description is not a tautology but adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fiken_list_credit_note_drafts, fiken_create_credit_note_draft). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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