fiken_get_invoice_draft

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling (e.g., if draft not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While efficient, it could potentially include a brief note about the return value without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description is partially adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not hint at the structure of the returned object (e.g., fields or links). For a get-by-id operation, users might benefit from knowing what is returned.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (companySlug and draftId), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it provides baseline value but no extra semantic help.

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 action (Get), the resource (invoice draft), and the identifier (by ID). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like fiken_get_invoice by naming the draft variant. However, it does not mention what data is returned, which could further clarify 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiken_list_invoice_drafts for listing or fiken_get_invoice for final invoices. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for using this specific get operation.

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