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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the 'view' permission requirement and disambiguating the three depreciation fields the response carries.

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 sentence is dense but front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause caria its weight – the field disambiguation is essential for the missing output schema. Minor terseness in the trailing 'Argument: orgnr' fragment costs a point.

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 correctly spends its budget explaining the meaning of returned depreciation fields and the required permission. For a single-parameter list tool whose annotations cover safety, this is nearly complete, though it omits pagination or volume expectations.

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 is fully documented in the schema (format and where to obtain it). The description's 'Argument: orgnr' adds no meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lista anläggningstillgångar (K2)'), making it clear this is a list operation over fixed assets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling get_fixed_asset, but the plural name and the K2 framing make the scope inferable.

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 description states a prerequisite ('Kräver view'), which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as get_fixed_asset for a single asset. Usage is only implied.

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