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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results are computed server-side from live Fortnox data and aggregated over all pages, meaning no client-side pagination is needed and the numbers reflect current data rather than a snapshot.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by an example question and a provenance note; nothing is padded. Minor waste from restating the title verbatim in the opening phrase.

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 values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers data source, freshness, and full-pagination scope for a read-only two-parameter tool. Only the link between the date parameter and the fiscal-year scoping is left implicit.

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?

Both parameters (date, min_payments) are already documented at 100% schema coverage including defaults and format, so the schema carries the burden. The description mentions neither parameter nor how date selects the fiscal year or what threshold the suggestion uses, so it adds nothing over the schema — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource ('Regelförslag för bankkön' – rule suggestions for the bank queue) and narrows it to recurring supplier payments and a cleanup rule, so the agent can tell it apart from the many propose_* and reconcile_* siblings. It falls short of 5 because the mixed Swedish/English phrasing and the metaphor 'regeln som rensar raderna' leave the exact output slightly fuzzy for a non-Swedish reader.

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?

An explicit example question ('Vilka regler borde jag lägga upp i Fortnox så att bankkön slutar fyllas på?') is a strong implicit trigger and is the main usage signal. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative among the sibling tools (e.g. get_customer_payment_patterns or get_payment_list), so routing still requires inference.

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