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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result is computed on the server from live Fortnox data and covers all pages, which tells the agent it is an aggregate live view rather than a paginated raw listing. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but those are less critical here.

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 description is front-loaded with the core scope, then gives a concrete example question and a brief computation note. Every part earns its place: the category list defines the bundle, the example guides selection, and the live/all-pages note clarifies behavior. There is no redundant repetition.

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?

For a read-only aggregate dashboard tool with annotations covering safety, a fully described two-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It names the included data categories, gives an example question, and clarifies live server computation across all pages.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's references to 'sedan ett datum' and 'den närmaste veckan' loosely relate to the sedan and dagar parameters, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific scope: a since-date status summary covering new/changed supplier invoices, new customer invoices, payments, upcoming due items, and inbox items. It is clearly more than a generic 'get' and its bundled nature distinguishes it implicitly from single-category siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives such as get_client_overview, get_cash_forecast, or list_due_dates.

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 ('Hur ser det ut i dag? Vad har hänt sedan i fredags?') gives a clear usage context for daily status or since-date recap requests. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower follow-up questions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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