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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' largely restates that. It adds genuine value by disclosing the return content since there is no output schema, but adds no behavioral detail like rate limits or scope beyond the month.

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 purpose, then alternative routing, then return details, then a read-only note. Slightly long but each sentence carries distinct information; no 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 enumerating returned aggregates and per-bilaga fields. Combined with the routing guidance and full param coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so year, month and orgnr are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies month scoping and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 vad som återstår att stämma av för en månad: alla avstämningar som inte är attesterade') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_reconciliation. An agent can distinguish it from the full-detail tool without opening the 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 gives when to use it ('för frågor som hur mycket är inte avstämt') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('för full detalj per bilaga ... använd get_reconciliation'). No inference required.

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