List Fortnox Offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, confirming the tool's safe read nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or data scope beyond the filter options already present in the schema. It does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key filtering options. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the rich schema (11 params, 5 enums, 100% coverage) and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate for a list operation. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema exists, but the summary of filtering dimensions and the tool name are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or response_format, though those are in the schema.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are fully documented with descriptions and enums. The description provides a high-level summary of filters but does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'sales offers/quotes', distinguishing it from sibling list tools such as list_invoices and list_orders. It also outlines the primary filtering dimensions (status, customer, date range), providing a clear purpose.

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 implies usage for listing sales offers but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like list_orders or list_invoices. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and resource type.

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