folio_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that results include events not yet booked as bank movements — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for what little it says, though the space saved is not spent on the missing parameter guidance.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not need one, but combined with 0% parameter documentation and no usage routing, the definition leaves an agent guessing about date formats and when to pick this over the singular get_event tool. The scope note about unbooked events is the one substantive completeness win.

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%: start_date and end_date are bare string fields with no titles beyond 'Start Date'/'End Date' and no format stated. The description does not mention the date window at all, so an agent has no guidance on date format or whether the range is inclusive, which is exactly the gap the description should fill at this coverage level.

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 gives a specific verb ('Les' / read) and resource ('hendelser' / events), and adds a scope note that unbooked bank movements are included. That distinguishes it from folio_get_event (single event) and folio_list_transactions, though the sibling relationship is not stated 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?

There is no statement of when to use this list tool versus folio_get_event, folio_list_transactions, or folio_get_balance. The presence of start_date/end_date implies a range query, but the description never says the listing is bounded by those dates or that it is a list operation.

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