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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: proposed_journal must balance (debit=credit in öre, min two rows) and basis must contain a source id or the proposal is rejected; it returns proposal_id/status; nothing is booked (side effect); and it requires the 'reconcile' permission. Annotations only carry the generic readOnly/destructive/idempotent flags, so this is real added value.

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 purpose, then usage/alternative, then validation constraints, return values, side effects, and required permission. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 states return values (proposal_id, status) and core side effects and permission requirements. Given the 11-param tool with 9% schema coverage, more per-parameter guidance would help, but the task-critical behavioral information is present.

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 9%, so the description must carry the burden. It meaningfully explains proposed_journal (balance rule, min two rows, öre unit) and basis (source id required) and references finding_ref, but leaves many required params (year, month, account, bilaga_type, reasoning) and optional ones (model, confidence) undifferentiated. Partial compensation only.

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+resource+scope: proposes an adjusting entry (justerande post) for a reconciliation/bilaga on a given account and month. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (propose_voucher) so an agent can distinguish the two 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 an explicit when ('when a reconciliation shows a discrepancy that needs correcting') and an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('for a regular voucher a human should approve, use propose_voucher'). Routing is fully determined.

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