Settings: get debitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: support for limit/offset, the version limitation that debtors can only be created/listed/updated, and the POST endpoint.

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 notice and core purpose. Some redundancy exists with the annotations and the repeated 'get debitors' heading, but it remains compact and easy to scan.

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 list tool with two optional parametersmates and an existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, use case, alternative tool, pagination support, and API endpoint. No critical call context 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 description coverage is 100%, and both limit and offset already have clear descriptions and defaults. The description only says 'Supports limit and offset' without adding new semantic information, so it stays at the baseline.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving debtors/customers ('Get all debitors', 'list customers') and names the specific resource it operates on. It also distinguishes the tool from creditors_list by explicitly contrasting customers vs suppliers.

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 gives an explicit use case ('resolve a customer name to the debtor id the receipt and posting tools expect') and an explicit alternative ('For suppliers you buy from, use creditors_list'). It also notes the API limitation around no delete endpoint, helping an agent understand scope.

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