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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that the output is a link a person opens, i.e. the side effect happens outside the tool. It does not state link lifetime, single-use behaviour, or what happens if the company is already connected, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the positive case before the exclusion, which is the right order. The long parenthetical of Swedish synonyms is dense but each item earns its place as a disambiguation cue; the emphatic capitalization is slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only link generator with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned conceptually, who consumes it, and which sibling handles the adjacent task. Only link expiry and already-connected edge cases are missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed and none is offered by the schema. Nothing further is required, though it could note that the target connection is inferred from context rather than passed in.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get a link that connects an additional, not-yet-connected Fortnox company to the current connection. The scope qualifier ('ANOTHER, NOT YET CONNECTED') separates it from get_connected_company and list_connected_companies without requiring the schemas to be opened.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('only for adding a company') and an explicit when-not (not the page for seeing or managing the existing connection), then names the alternative to use instead: connection_url in the connected company's details. Even the Swedish user phrasings ('min anslutning', 'bjud in') are mapped, which removes ambiguity for a Swedish-titled tool.

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