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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the simulation engine, the ISK schablonskatt mechanics and 300 000 kr fribelopp threshold, real-vs-nominal handling, default assumptions (7.00 %/0.20 %/2.00 %), the copy mode's work-hour logic, and the tone/link output contract. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only calculator.

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?

It is long and dense, but front-loads trigger phrases and keeps each sentence tied to routing, computation caveats, exclusions, or the output contract. A few tax/engine clauses could be trimmed, but for a 14-parameter tool with tax nuance almost nothing is wasted.

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, the description still names the response fields (svar and lankAttVisaAnvandaren), the currency, the tax jurisdiction, and the year scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and present results correctly is missing.

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 100 %, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the percentage-as-number convention (2.7 means 2,7 %), the default ten-year horizon, and the override rule that pris/antal/per supersede preset. It does not fully explain every parameter, but it adds real value on top of a complete schema.

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 purpose (compute the long-term cost of a recurring expense or convert a one-off purchase into work hours) with concrete trigger phrases, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from all four sibling tools by name. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use examples, an explicit when-not-to-use carve-out (engångsköp över 50 000 kr, lån, bostad), and names the correct alternatives (hyra_eller_kopa_bostad, privatleasing_bilkostnad, forhandla_bolaneranta, sparmal_isk_vs_sparkonto). This is as complete as routing guidance gets.

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