fiken_purchase_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are a sample rather than authoritative data, and "complete=false betyr ufullstendig søk" tells the agent how to detect truncated results. It stops short of explaining pagination limits (max_pages) or auth needs.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the scope and ordering lead, and the caveat about incomplete searches follows. Dense but imagery ("konteringslinjer", "kilde-ID") is left unexplained, slightly limiting immediate comprehension.

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?

It covers the key risk of the tool (treating sample history as authoritative) and hints at return shape despite no output schema. But for a 5-parameter, open-world read with 0% schema coverage, the missing date-range and page-limit guidance leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 five parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implicitly ties supplier_id to "samme leverandør" and explains the output-side complete flag, but says nothing about date_from, date_to, or max_pages semantics, leaving three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("Les tidligere kjøp fra samme leverandør") plus ordering ("nyeste først") and return contents ("kilde-ID og konteringslinjer"). It clearly differs from fiken_get_purchase and fiken_list_purchases by being supplier-scoped history, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Historikk er eksempler, ikke fasit" implies this is for orientation/reference rather than authoritative totals, which is useful guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus fiken_list_purchases or fiken_get_purchase, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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