Lageransvarlig: afregninger

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: what each mode returns (settlements with status; per-case detail with lines and missing items) and an explicit boundary that approval and posting cannot be done here. It stops short of describing pagination or volume limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mode-based behavior and ending with the scope boundary. No filler, every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-content burden and does describe both result shapes plus the approval/posting exclusion. For a two-parameter read tool it is nearly complete; only edge details such as result size or pagination are omitted.

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 only 50% (afregningId is undocumented). The description partially compensates by explaining the semantic effect of supplying an id (per-case detail vs. full list), which is the key behavioral meaning of afregningId. However it never names the parameter, leaving it ambiguous whether 'id' means afregningId or lagerId, and adds nothing beyond the schema for lagerId.

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 names the resource (afregninger) and precisely splits the tool's behavior by mode: without an id it returns all settlements with status, with an id it returns the per-case settlement including lines and missing items. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like lager_ansvarlig_overblik or lager_bookinger, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 two modes of use are described (id omitted vs id supplied), which implies when each call shape applies. The statement that approval and posting happen in the app, not here, usefully bounds scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the other lager_ansvarlig_* tools.

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