fiken_list_journal_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that date scoping is optional and its format; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/page_size existing, which is a meaningful omission for a list endpoint.

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?

One short sentence with the resource first and the optional constraint second — front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, which is not a conciseness fault.

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 5-parameter, 0%-coverage listing tool with no output schema, the description only addresses the date filter. Pagination semantics and the required company_slug — the one mandatory argument — are left entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the date bound format (YYYY-MM-DD) for date_from/date_to, but company_slug, page, and page_size get no mention at all, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb ("List") and resource ("journalposter"), so an agent knows this is a collection-listing operation rather than a single-record fetch like fiken_get_journal_entry. It does not explicitly call out that distinction, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

"eventuelt avgrenset på dato" only indicates that date filtering is optional; it never says when to prefer this tool over fiken_get_journal_entry or fiken_list_transactions, nor any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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