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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds context annotations cannot: the status value set (draft, booked, reversed), the fact that a month parameter pulls in the AGI compilation, and a genuine operational warning that the response contains personal data (personnummer, bankkonto) which should be minimized in output. It also restates read-only behavior consistently rather than contradicting the hints.

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 paragraph with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded, followed by routing, return shape, and the PII caution. Slightly long and the read-only clause is redundant with annotations, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so with specific per-run fields (id, period, utbetalningsdag, status, verifikat, per-employee rows with bruttolön, förmåner, skatteavdrag, arbetsgivaravgift, nettolön in öre). Combined with the sibling routing and PII handling guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema, including orgnr format and the month→AGI behavior. The description largely repeats the schema's month semantics rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Listar lönekörningarna för ett år') plus ordering semantics ('i ordning efter utbetalningsdag') and the conditional AGI sammanställning when a month is supplied. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings, get_payslip and calc_payroll, so an agent can select it without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use ('Använd för att se vad som har betalats ut') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_payslip for one employee's payslip, calc_payroll for computing a new salary. Nothing about tool selection 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.