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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds material context they do not cover: the response contains personal data (personnummer) and the agent is instructed to display only what the user needs. It goes slightly beyond by restating 'Läser bara, ändrar inget', which duplicates the annotations, but the PII/handling guidance is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loads purpose followed by usage routing, then return fields, then the read-only and privacy notes. The long enumerated return-field sentence is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists; still, the field list could be tighter.

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 enumerates the returned fields (id, name, personnummer, tax table/column, salary, employer contributions, holiday pay, active flag) so the agent knows what it receives. Combined with usage routing and PII guidance, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents format (10 digits, optional hyphen, example) and the source (list_companies). The description adds no further parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Listar bolagets anställda') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tools it feeds (run_payroll, calc_payroll, get_payslip, upsert_employee) and the alternative for time data (list_time_entries). An agent can place it 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 explicit when-to-use (find an employee's id before payroll/employee operations) and an explicit when-not-to-use with the correct alternative (list_time_entries for hourly time reporting). 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.