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 new operational context: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and span all pages, which tells the agent there is no pagination handling to do and the numbers are pre-joined rather than raw records.

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?

One dense sentence introducing the resource and its checks, followed by a concrete example question and a data-provenance note. Each element does distinct work and the key content is front-loaded.

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, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the check list, live-data provenance and all-pages note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'dagar' is fully documented in the schema including default (7) and cap (60). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 concrete resource – supplier invoices due in the coming days – and enumerates the specific analyses bundled into it (changed payment details, other bankgiro, duplicates, bank balance sufficiency). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not name its nearest siblings (get_payables_aging, list_due_dates, list_supplier_invoices), so differentiation is left implicit.

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 ska vi betala den här veckan? Är något konstigt bland fakturorna?") gives a clear situational trigger for selection. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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