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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: one ärende is created per buyer and nothing is actually transmitted to Skatteverket (the file must be exported and submitted by the user). This corrects a likely agent misassumption and stays consistent with openWorldHint=false, adding value beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action, constraints, side effects and follow-up are stated in order with no filler. It is on the longer side and packs several ideas per sentence, but every clause carries actionable information.

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 mutation with no output schema and a multi-step tax workflow, it covers purpose, constraints, side effects and the required next-step tool well enough to invoke correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as auth/prerequisite state and the concrete invoice_ids format.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the arguments, supplies the ROT|RUT value set for type (which the schema lacks entirely, 0 enums), caps name at 16 characters, and constrains invoice_ids via the same-year/all-paid/max-100-buyers rules; only invoice_ids' concrete format remains undocumented.

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: creates a Skatteverket ROT/RUT payout request for paid invoices. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings such as list_rot_rut, get_rot_rut_request_file, mark_rot_rut_request_submitted and delete_rot_rut_request by naming the actual action and the follow-up file step.

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 concrete usage conditions: only for paid invoices, ROT and RUT requested separately, all invoices paid the same year, max 100 buyers per request, and points to list_rot_rut (att_begara) as the prerequisite selector. It also routes the agent to get_rot_rut_request_file for the next step, though it does not spell out explicit when-not conditions against the mark/delete siblings.

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