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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it clarifies that nothing is actually sent to Skatteverket (only a local status marking in Kvickd), names the required permission (reconcile), and describes the returned request with its new status and amount. Combined with destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=true, the agent has a full picture of side effects.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then usage/alternatives, then return value, then side effect and permission. Every sentence earns its place 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, the description supplies the return shape ('begäran med ny status och belopp'), the permission requirement, and the local-only side effect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 orgnr, submitted, and request_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the toggle semantics ('eller tar bort markeringen') but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (mark/remove marking) plus the exact resource (a ROT/RUT request's submitted status), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_rot_rut_request_file and register_rot_rut_payout. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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 an explicit 'use after' trigger (the user has submitted the file themselves from get_rot_rut_request_file) and an explicit alternative for the next stage (register_rot_rut_payout once Skatteverket has paid out). The submitted=false case is also named.

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