wafeq_debit_notes_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'READ-ONLY' and 'GET' labels merely echo these hints. It adds no new behavioral context such as error behavior, response shape, or authentication requirements. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description offers only minimal additional value beyond consistency.

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 badge and endpoint path. Yet 'Retrieve debit note' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single debit note' are redundant, saying essentially the same thing twice. Replacing the redundant clause with useful details would improve the score.

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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate: it gives the endpoint, scope, and safety profile. It is incomplete regarding the response payload and failure cases, especially since no output schema exists. The simplicity of the operation makes these gaps tolerable, so the description is minimally complete.

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 schema provides only a required id string with no description and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by showing /debit-notes/{id}/, which identifies the id parameter as the debit note identifier. It does not explain format, source, or constraints, though for a single string ID this may be sufficient for a simple retrieve operation.

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 'Endpoint for retrieving a single debit note' and includes the explicit path GET /debit-notes/{id}/. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope ('single'), distinguishing it from sibling list, create, update, and destroy tools. Although it repeats the annotation title, the path and single-item scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly implies use for fetching one debit note by ID, reinforced by the GET path with {id}. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wafeq_debit_notes_list or other debit-note tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and path rather than receive direct guidance.

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