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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the 'book' permission requirement and the all-assets-vs-single-asset scope behavior. Idempotency ('Idempotent per period') largely restates idempotentHint=true, so it is not new information, and no return/error behavior is described. Solid but partly redundant with the annotation.

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?

One tight paragraph that front-loads the purpose and entries, then scope, idempotency, the preview alternative, permission, and arguments in that order. No filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the decisions an agent must make: scope, permission, idempotency, and the preview prerequisite. It does not describe the response or failure modes, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 25% (only orgnr is documented), so the description must compensate. It lists orgnr/year/month and explains the crucial asset_id semantics (omitted = all assets, present = only that asset), but gives no format or range guidance for year/month. Partial compensation, so a 3.

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 (bokför/post), the exact resource (månadens linjära avskrivning), the accounting entries produced (D avskrivningskostnad / K ackumulerad avskrivning), and the scope (bokslutsserien). An agent can distinguish this from preview_depreciation and other booking siblings without opening any 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 routing: 'Förhandsgranska först med preview_depreciation', plus the branching rule 'utan asset_id bokförs alla tillgångar; med asset_id bara den'. It also states the required 'book' permission, so the when-to-use and prerequisites are fully covered.

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