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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: no email is sent, the client sees and answers it in Kvickd, authorization requirements, and the return shape (id and status 'oppen'). The one meaningful gap is that idempotentHint=false is never surfaced — nothing warns that calling twice creates two separate requests, which is the most likely real-world mistake.

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 verb and resource, then layers prerequisites and return behavior efficiently in a short paragraph with no filler. The opening clause slightly duplicates the tool name and title, a minor redundancy rather than a flaw.

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 exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, status). Prerequisites, channel behavior and the no-email fact are all present. Missing only duplicate-creation behavior and any limit on request volume, which are minor for a 4-parameter creation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents orgnr format, title length limit, due_date format and the optional description. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the general prerequisite about the company being agency-managed. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 plus resource ('Skapar en förfrågan i kundportalen') immediately followed by a plain-language definition of what a kundportal request actually is: the agency asking the client for documentation or an answer. The example (missing bank statement or receipt) makes it distinguishable from siblings like create_underlag_upload or create_rot_rut_request without opening any 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?

Gives clear triggering context ('t.ex. ett kontoutdrag eller ett kvitto som saknas') and states the prerequisites (company must be agency-managed, user must be an agency member with at least write permission). It also rules out the email channel, which is the most likely wrong assumption. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for the case where the tool is not appropriate, which keeps it at 4.

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