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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the closing 'Läser bara, ändrar inget' largely restates that. The description does add real behavioral value by specifying what is inspected (draft state, who submitted and when, applicable deadline) and enumerating the returned elements, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Well front-loaded: what it does, then when to use it versus alternatives, then what it returns. It is a reasonable length with little waste, though the trailing read-only sentence is redundant with the annotations and could be cut.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, routing, and the returned fields, and annotations handle the safety profile, so an agent can call it correctly. The one shortfall is that it never explains how it differs from get_arsredovisning_status, leaving ambiguity inside this large sibling set.

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 the schema itself documents both parameters thoroughly, including the fiscal-year-end convention with a worked example and how to obtain the orgnr via list_companies. The description adds no meaning beyond 'för ett räkenskapsår', 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 and resource: submission status for the annual report and INK2 for a fiscal year, including draft/submitted/deadline. It clearly separates itself from get_overview and get_year_end_checklist. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_arsredovisning_status, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Explicit routing: use this for questions like 'is the annual report submitted', use get_overview for a general picture, and get_year_end_checklist for the year-end bookkeeping steps. Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference (aside from the unmentioned get_arsredovisning_status).

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