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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' sentence is partly redundant. The description earns credit, however, by disclosing the return shape (columns datum, verifikat, text, debet, kredit, saldo) and the amount unit (öre), which no annotation or output schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing then return format; every sentence carries information. The column enumeration is a slight expansion but is justified given there is no output schema.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned columns and units, and it covers scope plus sibling routing. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior for large date ranges), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents orgnr, start, end and the optional account filter with formats and examples. The description only implies period/account scoping and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Visar huvudboken för en period') plus the exact content it exposes (transaktionerna per konto med ingående, löpande och utgående saldo). It distinguishes itself from list_vouchers, get_voucher and get_trial_balance, so an agent can separate it from siblings 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('följa ett kontos rörelser') and names the alternatives with the condition that selects each: whole vouchers via list_vouchers/get_voucher, balances only via get_trial_balance. 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.