fiken_get_journal_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the response includes lines and attachments, which is not in any structured field. It omits what an attachment uuid is or where to obtain it, which the follow-on instruction depends on.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the cross-reference trailing. No padding, though the second sentence is ambiguous enough that its brevity costs more than it saves.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output shape briefly described (lines and attachments), this is close to adequate. But with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the unexplained company_slug and the ambiguous uuid reference leave an agent guessing about 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 carry both parameters, and it does not. It never explains company_slug, and its mention of 'uuid' actually risks confusion since journal_entry_id is typed as an integer, not a uuid. The reader cannot tell what identifier is required or how the uuid relates to journal_entry_id.

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: 'Les én journalpost med linjer og vedlegg' (read one journal entry with lines and attachments). The singular 'én' implicitly distinguishes it from fiken_list_journal_entries, though the sibling is not named. Clear enough to select without opening the schema.

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?

Points to a follow-on tool ('Bruk uuid med fiken_read_journal_entry_attachment'), which gives partial routing guidance. However, it never states when to use this instead of fiken_list_journal_entries or what prerequisites exist (e.g. needing a valid journal_entry_id from a list call). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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