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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it ("Läser bara, ändrar inget") and adds the sort order (newest first) and the shape of the returned payload. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

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 ordered purpose → usage/alternatives → return payload, with no filler. The return-value enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct field, and it earns its space because no output schema exists; slightly long only in that clause.

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, the description carries the return contract and does so thoroughly (per-entry fields plus per-status and total minutes). Combined with the annotations covering safety and the fully documented schema, 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 schema already documents every parameter including formats and enum-like values. The description only restates the same filterable fields (datum, anställd, status) without adding format or combination semantics, so the baseline of 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 ("Listar rapporterade tidposter") plus scope details (newest first, optional filters). It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings by name, get_payroll_time_basis and get_time_reporting, so an agent can route 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 when-to-use ("Använd för att granska eller attestera tid") and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them (payroll compilation, links/codes). No inference required.

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