List Fortnox Orders

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 covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema—it restates the filter options but does not mention pagination behavior, output content, or any operational quirks beyond what the schema already documents.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource ('List sales orders'). Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. The structure is ideal for quick 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. However, with no output schema, it could explicitly describe what the response contains (e.g., order fields or format). The tool name and context largely suffice, but a small addition would make it 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 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does provide a high-level grouping of parameters (status, customer, date range) and lists the filter enum values, but this largely duplicates the schema's existing param descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since no additional semantics are added.

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 a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'sales orders', along with the filtering dimensions (status, customer, date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortnox_list_invoices or fortnox_list_customers.

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 when sales orders are needed but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like fortnox_list_invoices or fortnox_list_offers. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, which is a gap given the number of similar list tools.

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