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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are computed on the server from live Fortnox data, span all pages (so no manual pagination), and registered-but-unbooked payments and write-offs are surfaced separately.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the useful example question and the data-source note. It is a bit dense and mixes Swedish domain phrasing, but every sentence contributes something and there is no filler.

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 reporting tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers scope, included edge cases (unbooked payments, write-offs), data freshness, and full-pagination behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 every parameter (part, sida, fromdate, todate, faktura) is already documented with its format and defaults. The description adds only the loose notion of grouping "per dag och motpart," without clarifying how the parameters map to that grouping, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: payments in a period, split into customer incoming payments and supplier outgoing payments, aggregated per day and counterparty, with unbooked payments and write-offs explicitly flagged. That is a clear, distinctive scope, but it never names the closest siblings (get_payment_list, check_payment_details, get_customer_payment_patterns) to differentiate itself from them.

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 implied through concrete example questions ("Vilka betalningar kom in i oktober? Vad har Nordic betalat, och när?"), which convey the intended scenario well. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like get_payment_list or check_payment_details, leaving the agent to infer which payment tool to pick.

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