wafeq_credit_notes_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the endpoint path and a READ-ONLY label, with no extra context about return shape, not-found behavior, or authentication. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY label and endpoint, which is good. However, 'Retrieve credit note' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single credit note' are redundant, so the structure includes unnecessary repetition.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool, and the description is adequate for basic invocation. But with no output schema, it does not state what the returned credit note contains, nor any expected response or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides only an `id` string with no description. The endpoint path `{id}` adds minimal semantic context by showing it is a path parameter identifying a single credit note, but it does not explain the expected format or meaning beyond that. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 operation ('Retrieve credit note') and the resource ('credit note'), and reinforces it with the endpoint GET /credit-notes/{id}/. It distinguishes from list-style siblings by saying 'single credit note', though it does not explicitly differentiate from other credit-note-related retrieve tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a specific credit note needs to be retrieved by ID. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list, create, update, destroy, or line-item retrieve tools, so an agent must infer the context from the name and endpoint.

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