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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly false, destructive false, non-idempotent), the description discloses the side effects (writes off acquisition value and accumulated depreciation, computes gain/loss, the asset stops depreciating), the auth requirement ('book' permission), and the book=false escape hatch that registers the disposal without creating a voucher. That is substantial behavioral context the schema does not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then prerequisites, then the argument list — appropriate ordering. It is a dense, run-on string, and the argument enumeration is list-like, but for a 9-parameter accounting tool nearly every clause earns its place.

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 complex, non-idempotent mutation with 11% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, mandatory ordering, required permission, and all parameter meanings/defaults. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 11%, so the description must compensate and it does: it enumerates every argument, gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), explains proceeds_ore semantics (0 = retirement), and assigns the roles/defaults of proceeds_account (1930), gain_account (3973), loss_account (7973) and book (true, false = register without voucher). Most parameters gain meaning not present in the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Sälj eller utrangera en anläggningstillgång') and defines the accounting action precisely: writing off acquisition value and accumulated depreciation and reporting gain/loss against book value. This is unmistakably an accounting disposal, clearly distinguishable from the nearby delete_fixed_asset / update_fixed_asset siblings.

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?

It gives a real workflow condition: book depreciation up to and including the disposal month FIRST to get the correct result, and it states the required 'book' permission. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_fixed_asset or spell out when-not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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