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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the 'image' status routing behaviour and the 'Scope view' permission requirement, plus what orgnr omission means. It does not cover return shape or pagination, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 what is listed, then routing guidance, then the filter — a logical order with no filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical examples, but every clause carries 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read/list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (policies and underlag), how to follow up on each item type, and the filtering option. Only the response structure/pagination is unstated, which is minor here.

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% for the single orgnr parameter and the schema itself documents the format example (559900-1004) and the omit-for-all-companies behaviour. The description's mention of orgnr filtering largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 policydokument och uppladdade underlag') and enumerates the content types covered (manualer, avtal, policyer, kontoutdrag, kvitton). It also names the sibling tools that read the listed items, so an agent can distinguish it from read_policy and read_underlag_image immediately.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use read_policy for text content, and read_underlag_image instead for entries whose status is 'image' (e.g. photographed receipts). It also states the optional orgnr filter condition and notes the required scope ('Scope view').

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