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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by explaining exactly what is destroyed (the year's imported verifikat replaced under replace=true), that nothing is deleted otherwise, and that native app-booked vouchers are never touched. It also discloses the org-number mismatch behavior and the redundant allow_orgnr_mismatch flag.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, requirements, arguments, then safety semantics in descending priority. Every sentence carries information, though the argument recap is partly redundant with the schema and the parenthetical about allow_orgnr_mismatch could be tightened.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers the essentials: auth scope, required inputs, data-loss protection, overwrite semantics, and the orgnr_note follow-up. An agent can call it correctly and safely without further context.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: it names orgnr, content_base64, filename and replace, defines replace's effect, and explicitly states allow_orgnr_mismatch is deprecated and ignored. It does not explain the expected encoding/format of content_base64, but the schema supplies the orgnr format hint.

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 (Importera) and resource (SIE-fil) with precise scope: it populates the general ledger with kontoplan, IB and all vouchers. No sibling tool performs an SIE import, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the create_/book_/upload_ family.

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 clear prerequisites ('kräver scope book') and the condition that selects the destructive path (import aborts unless replace=true). It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling offers an equivalent import, so there is nothing to route against. Not quite a 5 because no explicit when-not guidance beyond the replace switch.

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