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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format (XHTML as text), the absence of side effects ('Sparar och skickar inget'), that submission is the user's responsibility, and the required 'statutory' permission. These are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot convey for a generation tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then when-to-use, then parameter provenance, return format, side effects, and permission. Every sentence earns its place and none is redundant with the structured fields.

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 generation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return format, prerequisites, permission requirement, and side-effect profile. An agent has everything needed to 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it instructs the agent to send all data in user_inputs (e.g. payload.user_inputs from read_annual_report_draft) and warns that the stored draft is not auto-populated. That nuance is not derivable from the schema text alone.

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 (genererar) and resource (årsredovisningen K2 as an iXBRL file for Bolagsverket), and grounds it in the annual report guide's data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling readers like read_annual_report and read_annual_report_draft.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition (get_arsredovisning_status shows everything ready) and the alternative/error path (incomplete data yields an error naming what is missing). It names the sibling to consult and the source of inputs, leaving nothing to inference.

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