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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: result ordering, page size of fifty, presence of a has_more flag, and inclusion of unresolved writes. That is useful operational context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then pagination mechanics. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully conveys return shape (ordered list, page size, has_more flag) and the comprehensive page-size limit. The only gap is the semantics of the status parameter, which matters for a two-param filtered list.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains offset's role in pagination and implies the status filter ('including any that are still unresolved'), but it never documents the reserved/sent/succeeded/failed/unresolved enum or that status filters the list, leaving one of two parameters underspecified.

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 verb and resource ('List the writes recorded for this company') plus ordering and scope ('newest first, including unresolved'), which separates it from sibling tools like list_fortnox_operations and resolve_fortnox_write. It does not explicitly say which sibling to use instead, but the write-record focus is clear.

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 description gives pagination guidance ('use offset when has_more is true') but never says when to call this versus list_fortnox_operations or resolve_fortnox_write. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated as a selection rule.

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