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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the precondition that makes deletion legal (no payout registered) and the downstream consequence that the invoices become selectable for a new request. It does not state the failure mode when a payout exists or whether the deletion is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose and precondition front-loaded; nothing is buried. The trailing 'Argument: orgnr, request_id' restates what the schema already shows and is the one mildly wasteful element.

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, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing pieces: eligibility condition and post-deletion effect. It stops short of describing error behavior when the precondition fails, which an agent would need to handle gracefully.

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 50%: orgnr is well documented with a format example and a pointer to list_companies, but request_id has no description at all. The description merely lists 'Argument: orgnr, request_id', adding no format, source, or meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Ta bort en ROT/RUT-begäran') plus the eligibility condition that separates it from siblings like register_rot_rut_payout or reverse_rot_rut_payout. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 precondition: the request must have no registered payout, which is the condition that selects this tool over the payout/reversal tools. It does not say what to do when a payout does exist (e.g. reverse first), so the routing guidance is incomplete but clear context is present.

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