fiken_send_credit_note

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'sends', such as side effects (e.g., marking as sent), idempotency, error cases, or required permissions. Minimal added value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the parameters, what the response is, or any preconditions. The agent is left with many unanswered questions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter explanations. The agent must rely on parameter names and enums, which may not be sufficient for fields like 'includeDocumentAttachments' or 'mergeInvoiceAndAttachments'. Very little added meaning.

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 action (sends), the resource (credit note), and the medium (email and/or EHF). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fiken_send_invoice, the name itself provides the differentiation, so purpose is 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 vs alternatives (e.g., fiken_send_invoice, fiken_send_offer). No mention of prerequisites or context for use. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over others.

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