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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the sort order, the enumerated status values (open/partly_locked/locked), the sign convention for profit (öre, vinst positiv), and the prior_result.state lifecycle (none/waiting/ready/transferred) – meaningful context that no other structured field provides.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the resource and its ordering before enumerating return fields; every clause carries information. It is long but not padded, though it could be split for readability.

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 usefully documents the return shape and enum values, which an agent needs to interpret results. It omits any mention of pagination or result-size limits, a minor gap for a list tool.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema (10 digits, hyphen optional, example, sourced via list_companies). The description only restates 'Argument: orgnr' and adds no syntax or format 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 and resource ('Lista bolagets räkenskapsår') plus sort order ('senaste först') and the exact fields returned, which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_fiscal_year, lock_fiscal_year, and get_year_end_checklist.

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?

The mention of 'Scope view' hints at company scoping, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. add_fiscal_year to create one, lock_fiscal_year to change status). Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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