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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing the required 'book' authorization and the side effect of book_acquisition=true (D tillgångskonto / K funding_account, default 1930). It still does not say what happens on duplicate registration or what the call returns, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Purpose and the two key constraints are front-loaded before the parameter list, and there is no filler. The long semicolon-delimited argument block is dense but each clause carries information; minor cost in readability only.

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 16-parameter, 8-required mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description covers purpose, permission, validation constraint, posting behavior and every parameter. Only the response/idempotency behavior is left implicit, which annotations partly cover.

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 only 6%, so the description carries the load — and it does, enumerating all 16 arguments, giving account roles (gl_account = tillgångskonto, funding_account default 1930), date formats (YYYY-MM-DD for acquired and depreciation_start), asset_type values (EQUIPMENT|BUILDING|LAND|OTHER, which the schema does not enumerate), and the import meaning of opening_accumulated_ore.

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 ('Registrera en anläggningstillgång') plus the accounting regime it applies (K2, linjär helavskrivning), which lets an agent distinguish it from update_fixed_asset, dispose_fixed_asset and list_fixed_assets. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real prerequisites — the 'book' permission requirement and the rule that useful_life_months ≥ 1 except for LAND — but never states when to choose this over update_fixed_asset or how it relates to a later post_depreciation. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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