fiken_list_purchase_drafts

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, providing no additional behavioral context. It does not contradict, but also does not elaborate on potential side effects or constraints beyond what the annotation implicitly covers.

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, efficient sentence of 6 words with no unnecessary text. It is front-loaded and earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without verbosity.

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, no parameter details, and minimal description, the tool definition lacks completeness. Important details like pagination behavior, response structure, and company context are omitted, making it insufficient for correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 has 2 parameters (page, pageSize) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain their semantics or usage. The agent receives no help in understanding how to paginate or interpret these fields.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'all purchase drafts for the company', making it distinct from sibling tools like fiken_get_purchase_draft or fiken_create_purchase_draft.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., get vs list, or pagination). It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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