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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default period is scoped from fiscal-year start to today, and the label/data are aligned with reconciliation and trial balance.

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?

The description is two dense sentences: the first states what data is returned, the second covers arguments and default scoping. It is front-loaded and has little waste, though some Swedish domain terms make it less immediately accessible.

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 read-only aggregate detail tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned domains and the optional period behavior. It lacks sibling comparison guidance, but otherwise gives an agent enough to call it correctly given the annotations.

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 33%, with year and month undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by naming year and month as optional period arguments and explaining what happens when no period is supplied, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare defaults.

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 clearly states the resource: full company detail for an organisation number, and enumerates the included areas (income statement/balance sheet, bank reconciliation, subledger tie-outs, VAT, findings). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_overview or get_balance_sheet, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the required argument and the default period scoping when year/month are omitted, which implies usage context. However, it does not say when to use this aggregate tool versus narrower siblings such as get_reconciliation or get_vat_return, leaving selection guidance to inference.

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