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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Läser bara, ändrar inget" largely restates what is known. However, with no output schema, the description adds real behavioral value by describing the return content (monthly revenue/profit values and a list of upcoming deadlines).

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 the purpose, followed by alternatives, then return shape, then safety. Every clause carries information and there is 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return contents and read-only behavior. Nothing needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and the single orgnr parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format and how to obtain it (list_companies). The description only implies company scoping via "för ett bolag" and adds no syntax or format detail, 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 ("Visar") and resource ("översikt för ett bolag") and enumerates the exact contents: monthly revenue and profit plus deadlines for VAT, INK2 and annual report. It also names the sibling tools it is not (read_checklist, read_statutory_status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 says when to use it ("Använd för en snabb lägesbild") and routes the agent to the correct alternatives with the condition that selects them: read_checklist for remaining work, read_statutory_status for submission status. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure.

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