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 behavior: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and span all pages, so the agent knows pagination is handled and data is current. It does not describe aggregation granularity or sorting, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by an example and the data-source note. Nothing is redundant, and the API URL, while marginal, is compact and directly supports the 'live data' claim.

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-shape explanation is not needed, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle safety and parameters. The description covers source, freshness and completeness of results; the remaining gap is routing guidance versus the closely related ledger/voucher 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%, with each of the six parameters documented (top default 40, date/fromdate/todate as YYYY-MM-DD, account as single/comma-separated/range, financialyear id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a concrete verb and resource: voucher rows (verifikationsrader) in a period grouped by account, computed from Fortnox data. It is clearly distinguishable from list_vouchers or get_voucher in that it returns account-grouped aggregates rather than individual vouchers, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is conveyed only through an embedded example question ('Kontrollera konteringen på verifikaten i september'), which implies an audit/review scenario. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_account_ledger or get_voucher, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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