listCreditNotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and cursor support but omits other behavioral details such as default limit, ordering, read-only nature (implied by 'retrieve'), auth requirements, or response format. The description is minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word is necessary and no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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 the presence of pagination/filtering, the description could be more complete by specifying default limit, ordering, or typical use cases. However, the schema covers input parameters adequately. It meets the minimum viable but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions cursor-based pagination, which correlates to cursor and limit, but does not elaborate on usage or formats.

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 tool retrieves a paginated list of credit notes and mentions cursor-based pagination. The resource (credit notes) and verb (retrieve) are specific, distinguishing it from singular getCreditNoteById, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like listInvoices.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., getCreditNoteById for single credit note, listInvoices for invoices). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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