Deeplink to Credit Note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds some value by specifying 'direct link' and 'view/edit' capabilities. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., a URL), rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 of 15 words. It contains no filler, no redundancy, and every word contributes to the purpose. Very concise.

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, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and the required id, but does not describe what the function returns (e.g., a URL string) or error handling for invalid ids. An agent might need more detail to use the return value correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which already has a description ('Credit note UUID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct as the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 tool's action: 'Get a direct link to view/edit a credit note in the Lexware web app.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'direct link to a credit note', and the scope 'view/edit'. Among sibling deeplink tools (e.g., deeplink_invoice), this one uniquely targets credit notes, providing clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lexware_get_credit_note, lexware_download_credit_note_file, or other deeplink tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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