Get Fortnox Supplier Invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing what data is returned (supplier info, dates, amounts, line items, payment status) and mentions the required parameter and output format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a single-purpose first sentence, a brief Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, identifies the required parameter, describes the output format option, and details the return content (including line items and payment status). It covers all necessary operational aspects without needing extra context.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions: given_number and response_format each have clear descriptions. The description merely restates these in Args (e.g., 'The supplier invoice given number to retrieve' and 'Output format'), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific supplier invoice'), including scope ('all line items'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fortnox_list_supplier_invoices (which lists rather than retrieves a single invoice) and fortnox_get_invoice (which targets customer invoices).

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when detailed information about a specific supplier invoice is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'specific' qualifier and the name align with typical get-by-ID usage, making the intended use clear enough.

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