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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the closing "Läser bara, ändrar inget" largely restates that. However, the detailed enumeration of what the response contains (avskrivningsplan, ackumulerade avskrivningar, bokfört värde, avyttring) is genuine behavioral context not available anywhere else, which lifts it above baseline.

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 routing, then return contents, then a read-only note. The return-value enumeration is long but each field is informative for a tool with no output schema; there is little filler.

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 spelling out the returned fields, which is the right call. Safety/idempotency are carried by annotations and parameters by the schema, so the remaining coverage gap is only pagination/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a single-resource getter.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, including formats (10-digit orgnr, integer id) and where to fetch them. The description only implies the asset_id requirement, adding nothing the schema does not already state. Baseline 3 per the rule for high 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Hämtar en anläggningstillgång") and disambiguates from the nearest siblings. An agent can distinguish this from list_fixed_assets and preview_depreciation purely from the description.

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?

Explicit trigger ("Använd när du har tillgångens id") plus named alternatives with the condition that selects each (list_fixed_assets for all assets, preview_depreciation for the next depreciation). 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.