Get credit note

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

The description 'Fetches one credit note' is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations but adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention error handling, return format, or any operational nuances, and with annotations already conveying safety, the description fails to add value beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple get operation, though it lacks any supplementary structure such as examples or notes that could enhance clarity.

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?

Given the availability of sibling tools like bokio_download_credit_note and bokio_list_credit_notes, the description does not explain how this tool differs or what the response looks like in the absence of an output schema. It is too sparse to guide an agent confidently, especially without any behavioral or selection details beyond the bare minimum.

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% since the only parameter 'creditNoteId' is described, albeit minimally as 'Path parameter creditNoteId'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Fetches') and resource ('one credit note'), which precisely identifies the tool's primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bokio_get_invoice or bokio_download_credit_note, so it is clear but not distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bokio_list_credit_notes or bokio_download_credit_note. There is no mention of prerequisites or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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