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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' is largely redundant. Against that lower bar the description still adds real value: the öre currency convention, the tax_lines/current_tax_lines distinction after refunds, what suggested_voucher contains and that it must be reviewed before booking, and that include_raw pulls in the source's untouched response.

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?

One dense paragraph, but the purpose and the routing rule are front-loaded and every subsequent sentence carries domain payload (field inventories per record type, currency semantics, voucher-review caveat). It is long, yet with no output schema almost nothing here reads as 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?

There is no output schema and no nested objects, so the description rightly carries the full burden of describing return shape, and it does so per record type (order, payout, charge) plus the suggested_voucher structure and sign convention. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100%, including how to obtain orgnr and record_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description restates include_raw ('Med include_raw följer källans oförändrade svar med') without adding parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 post från en koppling') and then enumerates the concrete record kinds it returns (Shopify-order, Stripe-betalning, utbetalning). It also explicitly disambiguates from the sibling list_integration_data, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

'Använd innan du bokför posten' gives the precise point in the workflow where this tool belongs, and 'för att hitta poster, använd list_integration_data' names the alternative plus the condition that selects it. Nothing about when-to-use 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.