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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: return structure (groups of accounts), unit and sign convention (belopp i öre, intäkter positiva, kostnader negativa) and the computed result.

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 semantics. No filler; each sentence adds a fact the agent needs. The closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' is brief and reinforces the safety profile.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return — it does so concretely (account groups, amounts in öre with sign convention, calculated profit). All three required parameters are documented in the schema, and the sibling routing is handled. Nothing needed to call the tool 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% — every parameter has a format example and a hint (orgnr hämtas med list_companies). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the schema carries the full load and the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (Visar), resource (resultaträkningen), scope (en period) and presentation standard (K2 med alla konton). It also names the two sibling tools it is not (get_balance_sheet, read_annual_report), so an agent can disambiguate without reading 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?

Explicitly states when to use it (frågor om intäkter, kostnader och resultat) and routes the agent to specific alternatives for adjacent cases: get_balance_sheet for the balance sheet and read_annual_report for annual-report figures with comparison years.

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