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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the file content is returned as text and that OCR content is marked as such.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, with the core purpose and return format stated immediately. The API endpoint reference in parentheses is useful but slightly interrupts the flow, and the opening sentence is a fragment rather than a direct verb statement.

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?

Given the existing output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete for this read tool. It explains the return content and API source, though it could better clarify the parameter roles and the distinction from download_archive_file.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add meaning about how id, path, or fileid relate to one another, which leaves some ambiguity despite the high coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a file from the Fortnox archive and states that it returns readable text, with examples such as PDF text, OCR, and SIE. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling download_archive_file, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by 'Returns the text for you to read,' which suggests this is for inspecting archive content rather than downloading it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus download_archive_file, get_archive, or list_archives.

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