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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context not in annotations: results are server-computed from live Fortnox data and read across all pages, and rows are ordered by flag volume.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the example question, then provenance; every element is relevant. Minor waste from repeating the title 'Klientöversikt:' at the start of the description.

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 not be described here, and the description covers source, scope and ordering. The definition of what counts as 'flagged' remains unspecified, a small gap for a prioritization view.

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 'fran' parameter's default and 25-company page size are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 concrete shape: one row per connected company containing 'what needs to be done', sorted by amount flagged, plus an example question that pins the use case. It is clearly a cross-client priority dashboard, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_multi_year_overview or list_connected_companies.

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 ('Vilka av mina klienter behöver uppmärksamhet just nu?') gives a clear triggering scenario for an agent. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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