fiken_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on what is returned, error behavior for a nonexistent invoice_id, or whether company_slug must be a valid Fiken company.

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 short sentence with zero padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It is also in Norwegian while the tool name and siblings are English, a minor consistency friction.

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?

No output schema exists and parameter documentation is absent, yet the description explains neither the returned invoice structure nor the role of the required company_slug. For a two-required-parameter retrieval tool this leaves an agent guessing at one of the two inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not: company_slug is never mentioned, and invoice_id is only labeled as the "Fiken" identifier without format or example. That label adds marginal meaning (Fiken-scoped ID vs internal ID) but leaves the required company_slug unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Hent én faktura") and the lookup key ("etter Fiken invoice_id"). The word "én" signals single-record retrieval, implicitly distinguishing it from fiken_list_invoices, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular "én" suggests fetching a known invoice rather than browsing, and the sibling list fiken_list_invoices exists for the latter case. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance is given.

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