netsuite_get_vendor_credit_by_external_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format including the null case, which is important behavioral context. It omits error handling or auth details, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence with a return-type shorthand. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description includes the return shape and the primary use case. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return definition. It's adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% (only type string), so the description must compensate. It states 'Required: externalId (string)' and explains the field's role in the tool's purpose. While it doesn't elaborate on externalId's format or domain, the single parameter's meaning is clear enough.

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 'Get' with the resource 'vendor credit' and identifies the lookup key 'externalId'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting vendor credit specifically and stating its idempotency-check purpose.

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?

It explicitly states 'idempotency check before creating a credit', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context makes the intended usage obvious.

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