qbo_credit_memos_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying read-only) but does not elaborate on authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID does not exist), rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is minimal but still insufficient for full transparency.

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 an eight-word single sentence, perfectly front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one required parameter, no output schema). The description is nearly complete for a simple retrieval, but it lacks any mention of return value format or error behavior. A slightly richer description (e.g., 'Returns the full CreditMemo object for the given ID') would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage (the 'creditMemoId' parameter is described as 'The unique CreditMemo ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating 'by its ID.' Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific CreditMemo record by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like qbo_credit_memos_list (which retrieves multiple) and qbo_credit_memos_create/update (which modify). The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qbo_credit_memos_list or qbo_credit_memos_search. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the creditMemoId from a prior list) or contrast with other retrieval tools. This omission forces the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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