fiken_list_inbox

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. The description adds only the workflow hint about reading before posting. It says nothing about pagination behavior, the default filtering that occurs when status is omitted, or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the next-step routing. No filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but every included sentence earns its place.

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?

A read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema has modest requirements, but four parameters at 0% schema coverage — including a default-filtering enum — leave the agent guessing about what it will actually receive. The description should at minimum explain the unused/all/used distinction and pagination defaults.

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% for four parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and provides none of it. Most critically, the status enum (all/unused/used) defaults to 'unused', meaning results are silently filtered unless the agent overrides it — a material semantic the description never mentions. page, page_size and company_slug are equally unexplained.

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 ('List bilag i innboksen' – list vouchers in the inbox), clearly narrower than fiken_list_journal_entries or fiken_list_transactions. It also routes to fiken_read_document for content, giving a concrete next step. It does not explicitly contrast with fiken_get_inbox_document, so sibling differentiation within the inbox family is incomplete.

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?

'Hent innholdet med fiken_read_document før kontering' gives explicit workflow guidance: list here, then read the document before posting. That is a real when-to-use chain. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, nor on how to choose between the status values or when to page.

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