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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the return is a base64-encoded file (content_base64 + filename + media_type), and which date parameters each report kind consumes. It stops short of any error/permission or size-limit context.

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 usage, then parameter rules, then return shape — a sensible order with little filler. Minor dings for the garbled phrase ('kvickds riktiga') and the cryptic fragment 'Scope view' that costs clarity without earning 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?

With no output schema, the description properly discloses the base64/filename/media_type return shape, and it covers the required parameters and report-kind semantics. Remaining gaps are the opaque 'Scope view' note and any prerequisite about how orgnr is obtained beyond the schema's own hint.

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 17% (orgnr alone), so the description must carry the load and does: it enumerates the six kind values, specifies the accepted format values (pdf/xlsx), and maps start+end vs balansdag to specific kinds with the YYYY-MM-DD convention. This is exactly the compensation expected for a low-coverage, no-enum 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?

States a specific verb (generera) and resource (rapport som fil i pdf/xlsx), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_balance_sheet/get_income_statement by emphasizing it returns a downloadable/shareable file rather than data. The explicit 'instead of building your own PDF' line further separates it from any do-it-yourself 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use directive ('Använd det här i stället för att bygga en egen PDF') and routes date semantics per report kind. However it never explicitly excludes sibling report/data tools (get_trial_balance, get_vat_return, generate_ixbrl), leaving the agent to infer when a file export beats a data call.

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