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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the output is a version-6 XML file, the operation transmits nothing to the tax authority, and it requires the "view" scope. Those details help an agent set expectations.

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?

Purpose and workflow are front-loaded and the total length is modest. The trailing 'Argument: orgnr, request_id' list is pure redundancy with the schema, and the 'Scope view.' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic, but neither derails the definition.

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 read-only file-fetch with full annotations and no output schema, the description conveys what the file is, its schema version, and the human workflow around it. The gap is request_id semantics, which are absent from both description and schema.

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 only 50%, and request_id has no description anywhere. The description merely restates the argument names ('Argument: orgnr, request_id'), adding nothing beyond the schema and doing nothing to compensate for the undocumented request_id.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — fetching a ROT/RUT request rendered as Skatteverket's XML file (schema version 6) — which clearly separates it from create_rot_rut_request, list_rot_rut, and the payout siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

It explains the downstream workflow: the user imports the file into Skatteverket's e-service and signs there, and Kvickd sends nothing. That implies when the tool is appropriate, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparisons against siblings like list_rot_rut or mark_rot_rut_request_submitted.

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