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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: 'Sparar inget' confirms nothing is persisted, 'Kräver behörigheten statutory' discloses an authorization prerequisite, and it sketches the return contents (INK2 underlag and INK2R). No behavioral gaps of consequence remain.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the alternative-tool routing, then the default and return/auth notes. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long, with a few parenthetical examples that could be trimmed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers return values, persistence, required permission, the alternative tool, and the default invocation semantics — everything an agent needs to call this five-parameter computation correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that omitting the optional adjustment parameters falls back to computing on the bokslut as-is, and characterizes user_inputs/balance_sheet/income_statement as the årsredovisningsguide adjustment mechanism.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Räknar fram bolagets skatt och INK2') plus a precise scope qualifier: it computes tax *with* the adjustments from the årsredovisningsguide. It names the sibling it is not (read_tax) so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Använd för att pröva hur justeringar påverkar skatten'), explicit when-not and the alternative ('för skatteberäkningen härledd direkt ur bokslutet utan justeringar, använd read_tax'), and a default-case rule ('Utan något annat argument än orgnr räknas skatten på bokslutet som det är'). Nothing 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.