fiken_list_transactions

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 adds nothing on top: no note about pagination defaults, result volume, ordering, or what a transaction record contains. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

The single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it contains no information beyond the tool name, and it is written in Norwegian while the tool name and siblings are English, adding a small comprehension cost with no payoff.

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 three parameters at zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries the full explanatory burden and delivers almost none of it. An agent cannot tell from this text how to paginate, what company_slug format to supply, or what a returned transaction looks like.

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 all three parameters (company_slug, page, page_size), and the description mentions none of them. The agent gets no explanation of what a company_slug is, whether page is zero-based (it defaults to 0), or what units page_size uses — all of which the description should compensate for and does not.

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 verb ("List") and a resource ("transaksjoner") which maps to the tool name, so the domain is identifiable. However it gives no scope or qualification, and with 28 sibling list/get tools it does nothing to separate itself from fiken_list_journal_entries, fiken_list_invoices, or fiken_list_sales beyond the bare resource noun.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a valid company_slug), and no reference to any alternative tool. The only signal is the implied meaning of "list transactions", which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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