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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Läser bara, ändrar inget'. It adds real behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that the figures are computed at call time ('Räknas fram vid anropet') and by listing what each item contains. Not a 5 because pagination/limits on 'alla avstämningar' are unaddressed.

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 purpose and alternatives, and the detailed return-field enumeration is informative rather than padding. It is longer than average but each clause carries content; the return-value list could arguably be trimmed.

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 usefully compensates by enumerating returned fields (typ, konto, saldo, avstämt belopp, differens i öre, status, specifikationsrader, underlag, poster, attester). Combined with full parameter docs and annotations, an agent has what it needs; only aggregation scope/pagination is unspecified.

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 already fully documented (including the org-number format and the 'fetch via list_companies' pointer). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond that, 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 ('Hämtar alla avstämningar (bilagor) för en månad med full detalj') and enumerates the domains covered (bank, kund-/leverantörsreskontra, moms, skattekonto, anläggningar). It also names the siblings it is not (get_open_reconciliations, list_findings), so an agent can differentiate it 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?

Explicit routing: use this when working with a reconciliation, use get_open_reconciliations for only what remains, and list_findings for deviations with correction proposals. This is a textbook when-to-use plus alternatives statement.

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