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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is computed server-side from live Fortnox data and scans all pages, so pagination is not a concern.

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 definition is front-loaded and brief: it names the condition, gives an example question, and notes live server-side computation. It is slightly redundant with the title and API URL citation, but not meaningfully bloated.

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?

The output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It supplies the key scope and computation context an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 three parameters are already documented by the schema. The description only implies period filtering through 'i perioden' and does not add syntax, defaults, or other semantics beyond 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 states a specific resource and condition: manual vouchers in a period that lack a linked file in Fortnox. This is precise enough to distinguish it from general voucher tools such as list_vouchers or get_voucher.

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 implies the intended audit use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_vouchers, get_voucher, or check_supplier_invoice_attachments. Usage is therefore clear by implication but not fully guided.

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