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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' is confirmatory. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations via ordering ('nyast först') and a detailed return-field disclosure, which matters since 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then return shape. Dense and informative, though the return-field enumeration is lengthy; each sentence still carries weight.

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 fully compensates by enumerating returned fields (id, sender, subject, text, status, timestamp, handler, attachments, pending count). Nothing an agent needs 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 (orgnr) with 100% schema description coverage, including the format hint and a pointer to list_companies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Listar) and resource (bolagets inkorg) with scope (inkomna mejl med kvitton och fakturor, nyast först). An agent can immediately distinguish it from list_available_underlag and other list_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('för att se vad som väntar på att bokföras eller registreras') and routes to named alternatives for adjacent tasks: attach_inbox_item for sorting and list_available_underlag for voucher-linkable documents. 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.