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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact return payload (URL, expiry, max size), the required permission ('upload'), and the crucial side effect that nothing is persisted until the PUT, after which a document_id exists that can be linked via attach_underlag.

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 routing guidance, return shape, side effect, and permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema and only three simple parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the asynchronous two-step workflow, the return values, the permission prerequisite, and the downstream attach_underlag link.

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 100%, so name, orgnr and content_type are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no field-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Skapar en kortlivad uppladdningslänk för en stor fil') plus the reason (avoid base64 through the model) and a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes itself from add_voucher_underlag and upload_underlag by naming both as the small-file path.

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 när filen är för stor för ett vanligt verktygsanrop') and when-not ('små filer laddas upp direkt med add_voucher_underlag ... eller upload_underlag'), with named alternatives and their targets. 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.