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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and cover all pages, which tells the agent the output reflects current data rather than a cached or truncated sample.

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 compact and front-loaded: it identifies the area first, then lists the checks, then gives a concrete example question, then notes the data source and pagination behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 that annotations cover safety, the schema fully documents both optional parameters, and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: what is checked, why it matters, the live Fortnox source, and all-pages coverage. No essential selection or behavioral information is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of todate and financialyear is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, but it does not compensate with extra examples or constraints beyond the schema baseline.

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 names the specific domain (Anläggningar/fixed assets) and states three concrete checks: unbooked depreciations, fixed-asset register vs. bookkeeping, and large purchases that were expensed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_* tools such as check_accruals, check_vat, or check_opening_balances.

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 example question ('Har vi bokfört alla avskrivningar? Stämmer anläggningsregistret med bokföringen?') gives a clear usage scenario and implies the year-end/reconciliation context. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or route to alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can recognize the relevant fixed-asset reconciliation case.

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