Order Pipeline Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that it shows pending vs invoiced orders and supports grouping, which goes beyond the safety flags. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word adds value and there is no extraneous information.

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 read-only analytics tool with rich schema annotations and a full parameter schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, output shape, and grouping options. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional detail.

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% and every parameter is documented. The description's mention of grouping by status, customer, or month aligns with the group_by parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Analyze') and names the exact resource ('order pipeline and backlog'), then details the output ('pending vs invoiced orders grouped by status, customer, or month'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fortnox_list_orders or fortnox_invoice_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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when analyzing order pipeline and backlog with pending vs invoiced comparison. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the sibling list makes the use case obvious.

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