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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it posts into the general ledger as a normal voucher, the code validates double-entry bookkeeping, it requires the 'book' permission, and a booking cap on the key applies. These auth/side-effect details go well past the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core action first, then validation/auth/cap caveats. The trailing 'Argument: orgnr, draft_id' is redundant with the required-parameters schema, a minor waste.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers the mutation's side effects, permission requirement, validation, and usage guard, which is most of what an agent needs. The undocumented draft_id semantics are the remaining gap.

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 only 50% (draft_id has no description) and the description merely lists 'orgnr, draft_id' without explaining either. It adds no meaning over the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented draft_id, which the agent must supply from context.

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 precise compound action ('Godkänn och bokför ett väntande verifikatförslag') with verb+resource, and the '(draft)' qualifier plus sibling context makes it clearly distinct from reject_voucher_draft and edit_voucher_draft. An agent can distinguish 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?

Provides an explicit guard condition: only act when the user has instructed approval. That is a clear when-to-use constraint and implicitly steers away from reject/edit siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, hence 4.

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