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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by explaining the before_kvickd semantics (periods handled before the company was onboarded should not be flagged as late), a non-obvious behavioral rule an agent would otherwise misuse.

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 the returned content and reasonably tight. The before_kvickd note is a slight digression but it carries real behavioral value, so the length is largely earned.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers both arguments. For a simple read-only list tool the coverage is adequate; only the missing when-to-use routing against sibling VAT tools keeps it from a 5.

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 only 50%: orgnr is documented in the schema (with a pointer to list_companies) while year has no schema description. The description restates orgnr and clarifies that year is optional and defaults to the current year, which adds some meaning over the null default in the schema, but it does not fully compensate for the gap.

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 resource (VAT periods) scoped to the company's VAT period type (month/quarter/year), and even enumerates the returned fields (key, date range, net, status). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling like get_vat_return to sharpen the boundary.

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?

The only usage cue is the bare phrase 'Scope view', which is opaque. Nothing says when to call this versus get_vat_return or the other VAT tools, and no preconditions (e.g. fiscal year must exist) are given.

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