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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are server-computed from live Fortnox data and aggregated across all pages, and the horizon caps at twenty years. It does not cover latency, caching, or what happens when a requested year has no data.

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-loads the metric list, then the example question, then provenance — a sensible order with no filler. The provenance phrase is slightly long for the value it adds, but nothing is redundant.

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?

A rich output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and all params are documented in the schema, so the description only needs to establish scope and data provenance — which it does. The only real gap is the absence of sibling disambiguation among the several financial-reporting tools.

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 (fran_ar, till_ar, antal_ar) are already documented with format and defaults in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'upp till tjugo år i ett svar' corroborates the antal_ar maximum of 20 but adds no interpretation of how fran_ar/till_ar interact with antal_ar when both are supplied.

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 specific resource (multi-year overview) and enumerates exactly what it contains: intäkter, kostnader, resultat, likvida medel, eget kapital, soliditet per räkenskapsår. That is far more specific than the title 'Flerårsöversikt' alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_key_figures, get_management_report or get_profit_and_loss.

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 ('Hur har det gått de senaste tio åren?') implies when to reach for it — long-horizon trend questions spanning many fiscal years. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, despite several siblings returning closely related financial aggregates.

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