fortnox_list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only supplies '(read-only)'. It says nothing about pagination, default page size, auth/tenant requirements, or what the listing contains, which matters for a list endpoint with a max_items cap.

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 single clause is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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 tool with an undocumented nested 'params' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what filters 'params' accepts or what the returned invoice records look like.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'params' property is a nested object with no declared properties, and 'max_items' (with a 500 ceiling) is never explained, leaving both parameters opaque to the agent.

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 specific verb and resource ('List Fortnox invoices'), which is enough to distinguish it from fortnox_list_customers and fortnox_preview_receipt by noun alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating scope/filtering, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fortnox_preview_receipt or fortnox_list_customers, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The '(read-only)' tag hints at a safe read but is not usage guidance.

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