fiken_get_purchase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context by saying the response includes posting lines, supplier and payment data, but there is no output schema for this and no mention of error behavior, required permissions, or format.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler, stating the verb, the resource and the expected payload up front.

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 read-only single-entity tool with no output schema, the description does tell the agent what comes back, which is valuable. However, it leaves the parameters unexplained and gives no routing context relative to the many sibling purchase tools, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema or the description. The description does not explain that purchase_id identifies a specific purchase or what company_slug means, so an agent gets no semantic grounding for the two required inputs.

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 ett kjøp') and enumerates what the read returns: konteringslinjer, leverandør, betalingsinformasjon. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular-read sibling fiken_list_purchases, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over fiken_list_purchases, fiken_get_purchase_draft, or fiken_purchase_history; the agent must infer usage purely from the name and the plural 'list' sibling.

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