List Fortnox Vouchers

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the non-obvious financial_year sequential ID behavior (not calendar years) and examples of how to use it. It also confirms pagination and return content, adding meaningful behavioral context even though the read-only/idempotent safety profile is already covered by 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 well-structured with an intro, important note, Args list, Returns, and Examples. It is slightly verbose because the Args section largely duplicates schema descriptions, but the note and examples earn their place, making it appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (series, number, description, date), provides a critical dependency (financial_year ID), and includes usage examples. The combination of pagination, filtering, and the financial_year caveat gives a complete picture for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the financial_year semantics, providing concrete examples (e.g., 'ID 4 = 2025'), and explaining the response_format. However, much of the Args section repeats schema descriptions.

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 lists vouchers (accounting entries) from Fortnox with pagination and filtering. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fortnox_search_vouchers or fortnox_get_voucher, though 'list' implies a plural summary.

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 gives clear usage context: it is a paginated list for vouchers with optional filters. It explicitly instructs the user to call fortnox_list_financial_years first to resolve the financial_year ID, which is a concrete usage guideline, but it doesn't directly compare to alternative list/search tools.

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