fiken_get_purchase_draft

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 covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no word on error behavior for a missing draft, what the 'details' comprise, or any access constraints.

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 no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. Brevity here is not the problem; the missing content is captured under other dimensions.

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, so the description should at least indicate what reading a draft returns and what the two required identifiers mean. With 0% parameter documentation and no return-value hint, an agent must guess at both input and output for a real multi-tenant API.

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 carries neither. 'draft_id' is only weakly implied by 'kjøpsutkast', and 'company_slug' — non-obvious in a multi-company API — is completely unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb ('Les' / read) plus resource ('kjøpsutkast' / purchase draft), so an agent can tell it fetches a single existing draft rather than listing them. It does not name or contrast the sibling fiken_list_purchase_drafts, and 'detaljer' is vague about what is actually returned.

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?

Nothing states when to prefer this over fiken_list_purchase_drafts or fiken_get_purchase, nor what precondition (an existing draft_id) is required. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'eksisterende'.

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