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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description still adds substantial extra context: the state side effect (posten flyttas från väntande till hanterade), the required permission (manage_documents), and the returned payload with new status 'filed'. These go well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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?

Front-loads the action and its effect, then usage/exclusions, then return, side effect, and permission requirement. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the return value shape, the state transition, and the authorization requirement. Combined with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, nothing essential is left unstated.

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%, with orgnr, inbox_id, and category all documented, including examples and the list_companies/list_inbox lookup hints. The description reinforces that a category is stored with the attachments but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Arkiverar en post i inkorgen') plus the concrete effects (bilagorna sparas i dokumentarkivet, posten markeras som hanterad). It explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings create_supplier_invoice and attach_underlag, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('avtal, policyer, protokoll och liknande som ska sparas') and names two alternatives together with the conditions that select them ('ska en leverantörsfaktura registreras, använd create_supplier_invoice'; 'ska ett kvitto kopplas till ett verifikat, använd attach_underlag'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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