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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: the return shape (exists, payload, last-saved timestamp) and the fact that it reads a persisted guide draft. The closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' largely restates readOnlyHint, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then return values — no filler and a logical order. It loses a point only for the trailing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding new information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is read, when to choose it over its two closest siblings, and what the response contains. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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% and both parameters are richly documented in the schema (the year convention for fiscal years ending, the orgnr format and how to obtain it via list_companies). The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Läser det sparade utkastet till årsredovisningen') scoped to a fiscal year, and enumerates the content categories (belopp, noter, förvaltningsberättelse, undertecknare). It explicitly separates itself from the similarly named read_annual_report, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 when-to-use condition ('Använd för att fortsätta på ett påbörjat utkast') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: read_annual_report for the report derived from bookkeeping, and get_arsredovisning_status for what is missing before submission. This is textbook routing guidance.

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