folio_list_transactions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: there is no documented pagination, so unbounded date ranges risk oversized responses. It also links eventId to attachments, hinting at a cross-tool workflow. It stops short of describing the return shape or ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the pagination caveat, then the attachment note. No filler, though the eventId sentence is cryptic enough that it arguably costs more than it saves.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain what a transaction record contains and what account_number does. It covers the pagination risk well but leaves the filtering semantics and return shape unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it largely doesn't. Dates are only alluded to via 'avgrens dato', and the third parameter account_number is never mentioned. Worse, it highlights 'eventId', which is not a parameter of this tool, creating ambiguity about whether it can be passed in.

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 bokførte bankbevegelser' (read posted bank transactions). The scope ('bokførte', i.e. posted/booked only) is a meaningful qualifier. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling folio_get_transaction (single transaction) or folio_list_events, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single split 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?

'avgrens dato ved store svar' gives one concrete usage constraint (narrow the date range when responses are large), which is real guidance. But there is no statement of when to pick this over folio_get_transaction or folio_list_events, and no note that start_date/end_date are mandatory for narrowing.

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