fiken_list_account_balances

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 a genuinely useful, non-obvious convention — that amounts are normally expressed in øre — which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It still omits pagination behavior despite page/page_size existing, and does not say whether balances are as-of the given date.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 list tool requiring a date plus an account range and paging, the description says nothing about whether the date is an as-of balance date, how account ranges are interpreted, or how results are paged. With no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the description leaves most of the contract for the agent to guess.

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?

With 6 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions date, from_account, to_account, page or page_size. The øre note addresses amount representation rather than any parameter, leaving every input undocumented in both schema and text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List kontosaldoer' = list account balances), which is clearly understandable even though it is written in Norwegian. It does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as fiken_list_accounts or fiken_list_bank_balances, so an agent must infer which 'balances' listing applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (list_accounts vs list_bank_balances). The only guidance is an implicit domain hint via the øre unit convention, which does not help the agent choose the tool.

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