Download Credit Note File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: the default format is PDF, the XML parameter requests the XRechnung e-invoice, and the API returns 'whatever representation it can render'. This provides clarity on the tool's behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence 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?

For a download tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: default format, optional XML, and API behavior. It could mention the file type or content returned, but the parameter descriptions cover the basics.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'format' parameter by explaining the default ('pdf') and the intent of 'xml' (XRechnung XML e-invoice) and noting API fallback behavior. The 'id' parameter is sufficiently described in the schema.

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 'Download the file for a credit note.' and specifies the default format (PDF) and alternative (XML for XRechnung). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that download other document types (e.g., invoice, quotation, delivery note).

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 for downloading credit note files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_invoice_file). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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