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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by stating what the response contains (status per step, whether the step can be booked now, the proposed calculated verifikat) and by pointing to book_year_end_step as the write path, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing then return payload; no filler. Slightly long but every clause carries information, so it stays manageable.

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?

No output schema, so the description covers the return shape (per-step status, bookability, proposed verifikat), the read-only nature, the write counterpart, and sibling disambiguation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters already document format with examples (year as the year the fiscal year ends; orgnr 10 digits with/without hyphen, retrieved via list_companies). The description adds no further parameter 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) plus the exact resource (årsbokslutets fyra bokföringssteg) and enumerates the four steps, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It also names read_checklist and read_statutory_status as distinct siblings and explains the boundary.

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 when-to-use ('Använd när du arbetar med bokslutet för ett visst år') and explicit when-to-use-others, naming read_checklist for the general to-do list and read_statutory_status for årsredovisning/INK2 filings. Routing is unambiguous.

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