get_betalinger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get payment history', implying a read operation, but it omits any details about prerequisites, return format, pagination, auth requirements, or data scope beyond 'person or organisation'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the tool has no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not mention date-range usage, expected response shape, or how it relates to other 'get' tools. It is sufficient for basic selection but lacks richer context for an agent.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. While 'person or organisation' hints that 'identifikator' may refer to either type, it does not explicitly map to the parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 payment history, specifically for a person or organisation. This distinct resource (payments) differentiates it from sibling tools like get_inntekt or get_restanse, and the scope is explicit.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of specific scenarios. It simply states what the tool does; usage context is left entirely to inference.

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