fiken_list_credit_note_drafts

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List credit note drafts', implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or that the list may be incomplete without 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?

The description is extremely concise at 5 words, with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (list with pagination) and the detailed schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about drafts being mutable or pending, and there is no output schema to clarify return format.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (companySlug, page, pageSize). It does not explain the purpose of pagination or how companySlug is obtained.

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 ('List') and the resource ('credit note drafts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fiken_list_credit_notes (finalized credit notes) and fiken_get_credit_note_draft (single draft). It also specifies the scope ('for a company').

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiken_list_credit_notes or fiken_get_credit_note_draft. It does not mention that this is for drafts only or that it lists all drafts for a given company.

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