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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' is reinforcement rather than new information. The description does add real behavioral context beyond annotations: the newest-first ordering and a full enumeration of returned fields, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of disclosing result caps or pagination behavior.

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?

Purpose, usage, alternative and return contents are front-loaded in that order, and every sentence does work. The return-field enumeration is long but justified since there is no output schema; only the trailing read-only restatement is arguably wasted.

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 and only three parameters, the description compensates well by listing what each proposal contains and stating ordering and read-only behavior. What is missing is boundary behavior: pagination/limits and how the optional period filters combine, which an agent listing many proposals would want to know.

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%, so year, month and orgnr are already documented in the schema with format examples and the list_companies pointer. The description only hints at the year/month filter indirectly by naming 'period' as a returned field; it adds no filtering semantics (e.g. whether year and month must be supplied together). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 förslag på justerande poster och bankmatchningar') with an explicit ordering rule ('nyast först') and the fields carried in each result. It also carves itself away from the adjacent sibling list_voucher_drafts, so an agent can distinguish the two 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 concrete conditions for use ('se vad som väntar på granskning eller redan har hanterats') and names the alternative tool plus the exact case that selects it ('verifikatförslag i kön Väntande verifikat listas med list_voucher_drafts'). Routing between sibling tools is left to no inference.

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