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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and cover all pages, so the agent knows it is a fresh, complete snapshot with no pagination follow-up needed.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: concept definition first, then example question, then data-source note. Every sentence carries information. The mixed Swedish/technical phrasing is slightly terse for a non-Swedish reader but nothing is padded.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, one optional documented parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the business definition, an example phrasing, and data freshness/completeness. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter 'dagar' is fully documented in the schema itself, including its default of 0. The description never references it, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and condition: orders that have been delivered but not invoiced ('ordrar som levererats men inte fakturerats'). An agent can distinguish this from find_customer_invoices or list_orders. It does not explicitly name sibling tools it might be confused with, which keeps it at 4.

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 embedded example question ('Finns det levererade ordrar som vi glömt att fakturera?') gives the agent a concrete trigger for selecting this tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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