get_vendor_credit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fully describes what is returned (SyncToken, vendor, date, etc.). It does not explicitly state it is a safe read-only operation, but the verb 'Fetch' implies no side effects.

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, efficient sentence that lists the tool's function and output components with no extraneous words.

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 fetch-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could mention that only one record is returned, but this is implied. Missing details like error handling are acceptable for this simplicity.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'The vendor credit ID'. The description adds 'by ID' but provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 'Fetch a single vendor credit by ID with full details including SyncToken (needed for edits)'. It specifies the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'vendor credit', and distinguishes from siblings like edit_vendor_credit by mentioning SyncToken for edits.

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 implies usage before editing by noting 'SyncToken (needed for edits)'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but given the context of sibling tools, the purpose is clear.

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