brc_get_sales_credit_note

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Gets'), but no annotations are provided to confirm safety. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. With no annotations, the description should provide more context.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning the return value or including a brief example.

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 get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., the full credit note object). It is too brief, leaving the agent without information on response format or error handling.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'by id' but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's descriptions for 'id' and 'companyName'.

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 verb ('Gets') and the resource ('one BRC sales credit note by id'). It distinguishes from list tools like brc_list_sales_credit_notes. However, it does not elaborate on what a sales credit note is, which is acceptable given the sibling names.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives such as brc_list_sales_credit_notes or brc_get_sales_invoice. The description does not explain prerequisites or context (e.g., requiring the ID from a list call).

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