Settings: get creditors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description's read-only banner largely restates that. It earns credit for genuinely new behavioral facts: `rows` is not a grand total, paging must continue until an empty page, and v1 has no delete endpoint for creditors so the lifecycle is create/list/update only.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety banner, then purpose, then usage, then paging caveats, then endpoint — a good ordering. Minor waste from the '🟢 READ-ONLY' line and the '**get creditors** Get all creditors' header, which duplicate the annotations and title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: what the tool is for, which sibling to use instead, how to page correctly, and the absence of a delete path. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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% with defaults documented for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the non-obvious usage contract for those parameters — paginate until empty and don't treat the returned row count as a total — which is meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all creditors', 'list suppliers') and explicitly distinguishes the resource from its sibling by naming `debtors_list` for customers and noting that `creditors_create`/`creditors_update` are the mutation paths. An agent can identify this as the creditor enumeration tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('resolve a supplier name to the `creditor` id the receipt and posting tools expect'), names the alternative for the other domain ('For customers you invoice, use `debtors_list`'), and adds an operational rule for paging until empty. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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