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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavior is identifying the concrete REST endpoint (GET /3/archive/{id}), which helps an agent correlate it with Fortnox docs but reveals nothing about response shape, errors, or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint reference; no filler. It is perhaps too terse for what it omits, but nothing present is wasted.

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 and annotations are rich, so return values and safety do not need describing. The remaining gap is differentiation from near-identical siblings, which the description leaves entirely unaddressed for a 3-parameter file-retrieval tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline applies. The '/archive/{id}' fragment merely echoes the required id parameter without clarifying the roles of the optional path and fileid fields.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieve a single file') and names the underlying endpoint, so its purpose is legible. However, siblings like read_archive_file, download_archive_file, and get_fortnox_document occupy nearly identical territory, and nothing in the text distinguishes this tool from them.

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?

There is no 'when to use this vs. X' guidance at all. With three closely overlapping archive/file-retrieval siblings in the list, the absence of routing guidance forces the agent to guess between get_archive, read_archive_file, and download_archive_file.

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