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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' largely restates them. The description does add genuine behavioural context beyond annotations: the response includes personnummer, deduction amounts with deadlines, request statuses, sums in öre, work types, percentages and caps. No output schema exists, so this return-shape disclosure is doing real work.

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-loads the purpose, then adds the sibling routing, then the return contents. Dense but every clause carries actionable information (routing, statuses, units, privacy note) with no 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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return content, the description supplies the missing pieces: the enumeration of returned entities, the request status vocabulary (skapad, inskickad, klar), monetary units in öre, and the personnummer disclosure. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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, and the schema already documents it fully (10-digit orgnr, hyphen optional, example 559900-1004, pointer to list_companies). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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?

Starts with a specific verb + resource ('Visar läget för ROT- och RUT-avdrag') and then enumerates exactly what categories are surfaced: invoices payable now, invoices awaiting customer payment, submitted requests, and current rules. It also names the two related siblings (create_rot_rut_request, get_rot_rut_request_file) so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another 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 explicit routing: use this before creating a request via create_rot_rut_request, and use get_rot_rut_request_file for the Skatteverket file. That is a clear when-to-use plus named alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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