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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the actual contents of the return (boxes, net, payable/refundable amount, due date), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its returned fields, then the scope, then the arguments with the key format example. No filler and nothing that could be dropped without losing information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so (boxes, net, payable/refundable, due date). The remaining gap is procedural: it never says where to obtain the period key, which matters for a tool whose key argument is required.

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 33% — key and year have no schema description — and the description compensates by defining key as a period key with an example format (2026-01) and explaining that year is optional and otherwise derived from key. This adds real meaning the schema lacks; orgnr is left to the schema, which already documents it well and points to list_companies.

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+resource ('Momsrapporten för en period') and enumerates the payload (rutorna, netto, 'att betala/få tillbaka', förfallodatum), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closest siblings (list_vat_periods, approve_and_book_vat), so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to the alternative that supplies the required period key (list_vat_periods) or to the booking tool. 'Scope view' hints at read-only retrieval but is not an explicit usage rule, leaving context to inference.

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