Total credited by period, currency and reason

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: drafts are excluded until finalized, and currencies are never summed together (no cross-currency total). It stops short of covering auth needs, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, so it is good but not complete.

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 core aggregation semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by exactly two short clarifications on draft handling and currency separation. No sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter aggregate tool with no output schema, the description usefully describes the shape of the result (totals per currency, by reason, by month) and the inclusion rule. It is nearly complete; only edge cases like no-matching-notes behavior are unaddressed.

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 from/to and their formats are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the period is optional and keyed to issue date, which is marginal over the schema's own wording. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (finalized credit notes) and a specific operation (aggregate totals per currency, split by reason and month). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like credit_note_list or credit_note_get, which deal with individual notes rather than aggregates.

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 — this is the reporting/roll-up tool rather than a CRUD tool — but no sibling is named as an alternative and there are no explicit when/when-not statements. The finalized-only scoping hints at the context, but an agent must infer that credit_note_list is the tool for viewing individual notes.

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