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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: result ordering (newest first) and return contents (same fields as get_supplier_invoice plus totalsumma and kvarvarande saldo i öre). The 'läser bara, ändrar inget' line only restates the annotations, but the return-format detail is genuine added value.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each doing work: purpose/ordering, routing to the alternative, and return contents. Could drop the redundant read-only clause to be tighter, but overall efficient.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned (same fields as get_supplier_invoice plus total and remaining-balance sums in öre). For a 2-parameter, annotation-covered list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the orgnr and status parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only mentions that status filtering is optional and that omitting it returns all, which the schema already states; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the detail.

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+resource ('Listar bolagets leverantörsfakturor') with ordering scope (newest first) and an optional status filter. It also names the sibling get_supplier_invoice for the single-invoice case, so an agent can distinguish it from the many list/get siblings.

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 use cases ('se vad som ska betalas eller hitta en faktura') and names the alternative (get_supplier_invoice) with the condition that selects it (single invoice with all details). Nothing 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.