fiken_list_purchase_drafts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so "Oppretter eller endrer ingenting" merely restates structured data rather than adding value. No extra behavioral context is supplied — nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or what a draft record contains.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler prose. The second sentence earns little of its place since it duplicates the annotations, but the description remains tight and scannable.

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 list tool with a required company_slug, pagination parameters, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least explain paging and what is returned. As written it covers only the bare purpose, leaving the invocation details underspecified.

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% and the description says nothing about company_slug, page, or page_size, so the pagination contract and the required company scoping are undocumented in both places. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all, leaving the agent to guess defaults and 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 and resource ("Les eksisterende kjøpsutkast" = read existing purchase drafts), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings fiken_get_purchase_draft (single draft) or fiken_list_purchases (finalized purchases), so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fiken_get_purchase_draft, fiken_list_purchases, or fiken_purchase_history, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The only hint is the implied read-only listing context, which the agent could already infer from the name.

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