fiken_list_ehf

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context beyond that — that these are *received* documents carrying *structured* voucher data, which distinguishes them from raw attachments — but it omits pagination behavior and the important fact that the default status filter suppresses processed/deleted items.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key identifying words are front-loaded. It is efficient, but efficient at too low a level of detail for a paginated, status-filtered list tool.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a status enum whose values are unexplained, the description leaves the agent guessing about paging and filtering. For a query tool whose whole behavior is determined by those parameters, considerably more text is warranted.

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%: none of the four parameters (page, page_size, status, company_slug) has documented meaning in the schema. The description supplies no compensating information — no mention of paging semantics, page numbering base, or what each status enum value actually selects.

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 ("list") and a specific resource ("mottatte EHF-fakturaer og kreditnotaer" — received EHF invoices and credit notes), so the agent knows this is an inbound-document listing rather than an outgoing-invoice or single-document tool. It does not explicitly name siblings like fiken_list_invoices or fiken_get_ehf, so differentiation is inferable but not 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 guidance is given: nothing says to prefer this over fiken_list_invoices for outbound invoices, or over fiken_get_ehf for a single document. Critically, the schema's status parameter defaults to "unprocessed", meaning processed and deleted documents are hidden unless the caller changes it, and the description never hints at this filtering behavior.

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