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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the file contains buyers' personal identity numbers and is deliberately withheld from the API, the download location, the error behavior on incomplete data (an error naming what is missing), and that nothing is transmitted to Skatteverket. These are exactly the facts an agent needs to avoid promising the file to a user.

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 purpose and the important caveat (file withheld) are front-loaded, and the workflow sentences are dense rather than padded. The closing fragment "Scope view. Argument: orgnr, request_id." adds no information and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates what the summary returns and explains the error path for missing data, so an agent can interpret the result. The single remaining gap is that request_id's origin and format are never explained in either schema or description.

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%: orgnr is well documented in the schema (10 digits, example, fetch via list_companies), but request_id has no description anywhere. The only mention in the description is the trailing "Argument: orgnr, request_id", which merely restates names without adding format, source, or meaning, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 precise verb and resource: it validates that the Skatteverket XML file (schema version 6) can be produced for a ROT/RUT request and returns a summary of type, status, requested amount, buyers and invoices. It is clearly separable from create_rot_rut_request (which builds the request) and mark_rot_rut_request_submitted (which records submission).

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: "Använd efter create_rot_rut_request; markera sedan inlämningen med mark_rot_rut_request_submitted." It also states the key user-level workflow — the file is not returned via the AI connection but downloaded in Kvickd under Kundfakturor > ROT/RUT, imported into Skatteverket's e-service and signed there. Nothing about when to use it is left to inference.

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