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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and span all pages, telling the agent the output is a derived, complete snapshot rather than a paginated raw list.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core definition, then a motivating example question, then provenance. Every element serves a purpose, though the full Fortnox API URL is slightly gratuitous filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus zero params keep the surface small. The remaining gap is that ROT/RUT domain jargon and the boundary against list_tax_reductions are left implicit, which slightly limits completeness for an unfamiliar agent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 states a specific scope: cases where the customer has paid their share but the application to Skatteverket hasn't been sent, plus cases awaiting a decision. That is a clear, checkable state, not a tautology of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like list_tax_reductions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 begärt ut all ROT och RUT från Skatteverket?') gives a concrete trigger scenario, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for overlapping tools such as list_tax_reductions, so usage is only implied.

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