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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is computed server-side from live Fortnox data across all pages (so the agent need not paginate), and it explicitly surfaces negative balances, articles below reorder point, and items lacking a purchase price.

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 value proposition and the ledger reconciliation are front-loaded, followed by the exception categories and the example question. It is a single dense sentence plus an example; the example earns its place as a trigger, but the sentence is syntactically heavy.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and behavior — which it does (all pages, server-side, live data, exception categories). Only the language mismatch with English tool/sibling names and the unmentioned 'top' limit keep it short of full completeness.

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% and the single 'top' parameter (default 50) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description says nothing about 'top' or limits, adding no meaning 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 names a specific verb+resource: inventory value per article and total, reconciled against the inventory account balance in the ledger. That framing clearly separates it from list_articles, get_balance_sheet or get_sales_by_article, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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 ("Vad är lagret värt, och stämmer det med bokföringen? Vad behöver vi beställa?") gives concrete situational triggers, including the reconciliation and reorder use cases. It stops short of stating when NOT to use the tool or naming a substitute for related questions.

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