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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the permission requirement ('book'), which is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations. However, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or what happens to related records, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then permission, then argument list. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and permission but lacks details on permanence, side effects, and how to obtain asset_id. It's minimally complete but misses contextual richness that would help an agent call it correctly.

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 50%; orgnr has a full schema description, but asset_id does not. The description lists the parameters but adds no meaning beyond the names. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and no additional parameter context.

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: 'Ta bort en anläggningstillgång ur registret' (remove a fixed asset from the register). Distinguishes itself from create_fixed_asset, update_fixed_asset, dispose_fixed_asset, and get_fixed_asset by naming the exact operation.

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?

The description implies usage through the permission requirement ('Kräver behörigheten book') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus dispose_fixed_asset, which is a close sibling with different semantics. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission are stated.

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