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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the required 'Scope view' permission disclosure and the id-field mapping per source, though it does not describe pagination or result limits.

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?

The key content (what is listed, and which ids to use downstream) is front-loaded in a dense but readable sentence. The trailing 'Argument: orgnr' is redundant with the schema and slightly dilutes the structure.

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 compensates by naming the three result categories and the returned id fields (document_id vs underlag_id), which is what an agent needs to act on the output. Return shape details like item counts or pagination are not given.

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?

Only one parameter, and its schema description is complete (100% coverage) including format and where to obtain it. The description's trailing 'Argument: orgnr' adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 (lista) and resource (underlag) and enumerates the three distinct source pools (inbox, documents, pool) that this tool aggregates. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_inbox, list_documents, and list_supplier_underlag, which each cover only one source.

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 downstream context: it names create_voucher and attach_underlag as the consumers of the returned ids, and explains which id field applies to which source. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the single-source siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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