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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words on the trait not expressible in annotations: the file is never transmitted through the conversation and instead is surfaced as an openable link. That is a genuinely load-bearing detail for an agent deciding how to present results. It stops short of noting link lifetime, permission requirements, or what happens if a path/fileid combination is wrong.

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?

Three compact sentences, no filler, and the behavioral payoff (link, not inline file) is placed early. The leading noun fragment is stylistically awkward as an opener but does not cost the reader much.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is routing: with downloads, reads, and archive listings all present as siblings, the description does not fully arm an agent to pick this tool without comparing schemas. Adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The endpoint template '{id}' loosely signals that id is the file identifier, but the description says nothing about the optional 'path' (show a folder) or 'fileid' (fileId from fileattachments) parameters or how they interact with id. Marginal value added over the schema.

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 identifies the resource (a file in the Fortnox archive) and, via the endpoint reference GET /3/archive/{id}, an unambiguous operation. It also distinguishes the output mode ('a link the person opens') from tools that return the file contents inline. The opening sentence is a noun fragment ('A file from the Fortnox archive') rather than a verb phrase, which weakens the framing slightly.

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 statement of when to use this versus the obvious sibling read_archive_file, nor versus get_archive or list_archives, even though all four appear in the sibling list. The agent must infer from 'link the person opens' that this is the share-with-a-human path rather than the read-the-contents path.

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