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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: the BAS chart of accounts is created on the first call if the company has none, and nothing changes otherwise. It also enumerates the returned fields, which matters because 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and sorting first, usage plus alternative next, return format and the first-call side effect last. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool this is complete: the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, the return fields are named despite the absence of an output schema, the sibling alternative is given, and the conditional write side effect is disclosed.

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 orgnr parameter already documents the format (10 digits, optional hyphen, example) and how to obtain it via list_companies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (list) and resource (bolagets kontoplan) plus the ordering (sorterad på kontonummer), and explicitly routes balance queries to the sibling get_trial_balance. An agent can distinguish it from get_trial_balance, get_general_ledger and upsert_account without opening any schema.

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 concrete when-to-use cases ('hitta rätt konto inför bokföring eller kontrollera ett kontos namn') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('för saldon, använd get_trial_balance'). Nothing is left to inference.

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