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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only restatement adds little. The description earns credit for disclosing the return shape (poster med förfallodatum, allvarlighetsgrad) and the non-obvious nuance that some entries carry an action-verktyg that performs the action after user approval, which matters for an agent deciding whether this call is sufficient.

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 verb and resource, then coverage, then usage routing, then return shape. Each sentence does distinct work and there is no filler or repetition.

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 steps in to describe the returned entries (due date, severity, optional action tool). Combined with the routing guidance and the read-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the orgnr format (10 digits, optional hyphen) and how to obtain it via list_companies. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

Specific verb ('Visar') plus resource ('att göra-lista') with an explicit scope ('per dagens datum, utifrån vad som faktiskt har gjorts'). It enumerates the concrete domains covered (leverantörsfakturor, moms, månadsavstämning, bokslut, INK2, årsredovisning) and names the sibling it is not (get_year_end_checklist), so the agent can separate the two checklists immediately.

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?

States the triggering question ('vad behöver jag göra nu') and explicitly routes the alternative case ('för årsbokslutets fyra bokföringssteg i ett visst år, använd get_year_end_checklist'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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