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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' largely restates them. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the privacy rule 'Koderna visas aldrig', the conditional link ('om den är aktiverad'), and the units of the returned figures (öre, minutes).

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then usage plus alternative, then return payload, then caveats. Dense but every clause carries content; the trailing read-only sentence is the only mildly redundant part given the annotations.

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, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly (link, active employees with code status and salary in öre, counts of pending entries/minutes, available time types). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents format and how to obtain it via list_companies, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter 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 ('Visar läget för tidrapporteringen') and enumerates the concrete facets it reports on: link, employees with personal codes, and pending approvals. It also explicitly delimits itself from the sibling list_time_entries, which handles the actual time entries.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases ('ge en anställd länken', 'se om något ska attesteras') and names the alternative tool for the adjacent need ('för själva tidposterna, använd list_time_entries'). An agent can route correctly without further inference.

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