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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructively-inert behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond that: the return shape (per section plus flat list, blocking items first), the meaning of the returned fields (kind=question, kind=toggle, suggested_value, complete), the Nej/Ja toggle semantics including toggle_field/confirm_field, and the whole-kronor constraint. It does not cover auth or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, but a large fraction of the text is a workflow protocol for a different tool (set_arsredovisning_inputs) rather than what this status call does or returns. The per-section enumeration and toggle mechanics are useful, yet the block is long and mixes read semantics with downstream write instructions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return payload, and it does: section grouping, flat list, blocking-first ordering, complete flag, and the kind/suggested_value fields an agent will act on. Combined with the 2-parameter schema it is largely sufficient, with the year-parameter ambiguity the main remaining hole.

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 50%: orgnr is documented in the schema (10 digits, optional hyphen, sourced from list_companies) while year carries no schema description. The description only adds "Argument: orgnr, year", doing nothing to disambiguate whether year is a calendar year, fiscal year, or a fiscal-year id, which is the one real ambiguity here. Baseline 3 for partial schema coverage.

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 and resource: it returns the open items ("öppna poster") for the annual report and exactly what remains before iXBRL generation, structured per section plus a flat blocking-first list. That is far more precise than a tautology. It does not name or contrast itself against close siblings like read_annual_report_draft, read_statutory_status or get_year_end_checklist, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 an explicit operating procedure: iterate items with the user as "approve or change", item by item, wait for confirmation before writing via set_arsredovisning_inputs, propose where suggested_value exists and ask where kind=question. It also states the termination condition (generation is released only when complete==true). When-to-use and the handoff to alternatives are fully spelled out.

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