fiken_list_bank_balances

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 safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds only the date format requirement, which is somewhat useful. It says nothing about pagination defaults/behavior or what happens when no balances exist for a given date, which would be valuable for a paged open-world list tool.

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 the resource stated first and the optional modifier second — well front-loaded and free of padding. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

This is a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema documentation and no output schema. With annotations covering safety but nothing explaining company_slug, pagination, or the shape of returned balances, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before a correct call.

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% across 4 parameters. The description rescues only the 'date' parameter by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format, but page, page_size (default 100) and especially company_slug — the sole required parameter — get no explanation of what a slug is or where to obtain it. The coverage gap is not compensated.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('List banksaldoer' – list bank balances) and states the optional date scoping. It is understandable but written in Norwegian, and it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like fiken_list_bank_accounts or fiken_list_account_balances, so an agent must infer the difference between 'balances' and 'accounts'.

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?

The description implies usage through the optional date parameter ('eventuelt for en dato'), which signals a point-in-time vs current balance behavior. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as fiken_list_bank_accounts (listing the accounts themselves) or fiken_list_account_balances (general ledger balances), leaving the agent to guess among several similar list tools.

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