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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description usefully adds context beyond them: that nothing is transmitted to Skatteverket/Bolagsverket and that user confirmation is required first. It does not describe downstream effects of the status change, but the safety-critical context is well covered.

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 action, then the safety caveat, then the argument list in a single dense paragraph with little waste. The enumeration of arguments is slightly redundant with the schema, but the inline enum values justify it.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the internal-only guarantee, the confirmation requirement, and the enumerations. It leaves the post-marking consequences and status semantics unexplained, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only 20% (just orgnr documented), so the description carries real weight — it supplies the allowed values for 'kind' (ARSREDOVISNING|INK2) and 'status' (NOT_SUBMITTED|SUBMITTED|APPROVED) that the schema lacks entirely (0 enums). It does not explain the semantics of individual statuses or how 'year' should be sourced, but it substantially compensates for the coverage 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 concrete verb and resource — marking a 'bokslutsleverabel' as submitted/approved — and pairs it with an explicit scope ('Scope statutory'), which helps separate it from the broadly similar sibling mark_rot_rut_request_submitted. It does not name a sibling directly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 one actionable rule ('Bekräfta med användaren först') and clarifies the operation is internal with no external transmission, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it never says when NOT to use it, nor does it route the agent to related alternatives like read_statutory_status or the year-end step tools.

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