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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint. The description does add real behavioral value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return contents (subtotals, calculated result, balance check) and that amounts are in öre, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then return contents, then safety. Every clause is relevant, though the final read-only sentence repeats what the annotations already say and could be trimmed.

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 compensates by naming the returned sections, subtotals, calculated result and balance check, plus the currency unit. Combined with the sibling routing and the fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including format and a hint to fetch orgnr via list_companies, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that balansdag is the date the balances apply to, which the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource (shows the balance sheet as of a date, per K2) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings, get_trial_balance and get_income_statement. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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 use condition (questions about assets, liabilities and equity) and names the alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_trial_balance for per-account balances, get_income_statement for the income statement. Nothing is left to inference.

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