Settings: get creditors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY: Fetches data. Makes no changes' and adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: pagination behavior ('the response reports the total in rows') and the lifecycle note that creditors can only be created, listed, and updated. No contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the read-only callout, followed by purpose, alternative, pagination, and lifecycle. There is minor redundancy (read-only line + heading + 'Get all creditors'), but each section contributes distinct 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 simple two-parameter list call with an output schema and extensive annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, sibling differentiation, pagination behavior, and lifecycle constraints. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning to `limit` and `offset` by explaining the pagination contract and how the reported `rows` total guides paging. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions without restating every default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all creditors' and explains the intended use case: 'resolve a supplier name to the creditor id the receipt and posting tools expect.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling `debtors_list', leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It clearly says when to use this tool—to list suppliers—and explicitly names the alternative for customers: 'For customers you invoice, use debtors_list.' It also gives practical pagination guidance ('page until you have seen that many rows'). This is strong, explicit usage guidance.

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