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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: monthlyRent is auto-converted via ×12, each line reports both yearlyRent and monthlyRent, apartment types are parsed as free text, and the response includes a mandatory attribution field. This gives the agent operational expectations well beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: core operation, rent-unit behavior, apartment-type handling, attribution requirement, and the PDF alternative. Core functionality is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is operational detail an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining what the response contains: per-unit conversions, totals, averages, and attribution. It also covers batching limits, payment-unit conversion, and the sibling tool for PDF export. Nothing essential appears missing for correct use.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantic detail: it clarifies the yearlyRent/monthlyRent relationship and conversion rule, and it explains that apartmentType free text is interpreted automatically. It does not fully enumerate every property, but the schema already covers those.

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?

Description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Konvertera en hel hyreslista (flera lägenheter) till normhyra i ett anrop.' It specifies the batch scope, the calculation target, and the returned summary, and it explicitly routes PDF creation to export_rent_roll_pdf, distinguishing it from a sibling.

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 concrete context: it handles multiple apartments in one call, caps input at 300, and directs users to export_rent_roll_pdf for PDF output. It does not explicitly discuss when to use calculate_normhyra or calculate_actual_rent instead, but the batch-vs-single distinction is implied by 'hel hyreslista' and 'i ett anrop.'

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