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 useful behavioral context: it does not consume credit, it only reads, and it returns per-instruction id, text, orgnr, and applicable companies. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 description is front-loaded with the resource and purpose, then moves efficiently through usage instruction, filtering behavior, return fields, and safety/credit properties. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 appropriately explains the return fields and the orgnr filtering semantics. Annotations cover the safety profile and the single parameter is well documented. It could be slightly more complete with ordering or pagination behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents orgnr as optional with an example. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that with orgnr the result includes the company's own instructions plus shared account-level instructions, and that without orgnr it returns all instructions the caller can access.

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 ('Listar bolagets instruktioner') and defines what an instruction is: user-saved bookkeeping rules, e.g. which account a cost is booked to. This is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools such as add_instruction, update_instruction, delete_instruction, and list_policies.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: read and follow the instructions before booking or proposing journal entries. It also explains the effect of passing or omitting orgnr. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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