fiken_list_credit_note_drafts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares it safe, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond stating it returns drafts. It does not mention pagination behavior (page/pageSize parameters), ordering, or whether results are limited to a subset. The word 'all' is misleading given pagination.

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?

While the single sentence is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential parameter and behavioral information that could be added without significant verbosity. The structure does not earn its place given the gaps.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the agent does not know the return format (e.g., array of draft objects, fields). The description does not cross-reference sibling tools or explain how this fits into the credit note workflow, leaving the tool's role incomplete.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (page, pageSize). The tool has two optional parameters with no meaning provided, leaving the agent unaware of how to control pagination or result size.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'all credit note drafts', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like fiken_list_credit_notes (issued credit notes) and fiken_get_credit_note_draft (single draft). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 like fiken_list_credit_notes or fiken_get_credit_note_draft. Missing context such as prerequisite steps (e.g., creating drafts first) or when pagination is needed.

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