fiken_list_purchase_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral value is implying each returned item carries a uuid consumable by the read tool; it says nothing about pagination, result count, or empty-list behavior.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the follow-up instruction. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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 no output schema, no annotations gap but 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the two required inputs and roughly what is returned. It gives only the action and one follow-up pointer, leaving company_slug semantics and result shape undocumented.

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 both required parameters (company_slug, purchase_id), and the description does not explain either of them — notably not the expected company_slug format. The 'uuid' mentioned is an output value, not an input, so it adds nothing to parameter semantics.

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 resource ('bilagsvedlegg på et kjøp' – attachments on a purchase), which an agent can distinguish from fiken_get_purchase or fiken_read_purchase_attachment. The only weakness is that the resource noun is Norwegian while the tool name and schema are English, adding a small comprehension cost.

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?

'Bruk uuid med fiken_read_purchase_attachment' explicitly routes the agent to the correct sibling for fetching attachment content, which is the natural follow-up action. No when-not-to-use case is given (e.g., listing vs. reading), so it stops short of a 5.

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