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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds value beyond that by stating the report is computed server-side from live Fortnox data and spans all pages, so the agent knows there is no pagination to chase and no client-side aggregation needed. It does not discuss cost/latency of a multi-page aggregation call, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the supporting sentences each add something (contents, example trigger, data source). The example question is slightly redundant with the enumerated contents but earns its place as an intent-matching cue.

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, a full output schema, and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey scope and provenance — which it does, including the live-data source and full-pagination behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters (period formats and forecast weeks). The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, defaults, or accepted formats, 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?

The description names a concrete deliverable and enumerates its contents precisely: month/YTD result vs prior year, balance sheet, liquidity, key figures, and largest changes, in one response. That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from granular siblings like get_balance_sheet or get_key_figures, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ("Gör en månadsrapport till styrelsen för september") gives a concrete trigger for invocation and maps well to a board-reporting intent. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer the granular sibling tools instead, so the alternative-routing half of the guidance is missing.

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