getCreditNoteById

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what data is retrieved. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for included fields).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a basic overview of what is returned but lacks details on format, pagination, or behavior for missing or invalid IDs. It is adequate for a simple retrieval but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100% for creditNoteId and __userContext. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., listing included fields but not mapping to parameters). The nested __userContext object is not explained in the description.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'credit note by its ID', and lists included fields (amount, status, customer, invoice association, line items URL). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like getInvoiceById or listCreditNotes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., listCreditNotes). The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the straightforward retrieval purpose.

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