siigo_get_credit_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or data format (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate for safe and effective use.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific credit note') and efficiently specifies the key constraint ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., credit note fields), error handling, or operational constraints. Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Credit note ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific credit note by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_credit_notes' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single entity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations (e.g., 'siigo_get_invoice'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid credit note ID), compare it to 'siigo_get_credit_notes' for listing multiple notes, or specify error conditions (e.g., handling invalid IDs). This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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