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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: the calculation is derived directly from bokslutet with no adjustments, and it always covers the full fiscal year. It stops short of stating permissions prerequisites or pagination, but adds clear value.

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 core action, then alternatives, then return contents. Dense but every sentence carries information (scope, routing, outputs, read-only). Slightly list-heavy in the returns clause but no waste.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (resultat, periodiseringsfond, löneskatt, beskattningsbar inkomst, INK2-rader, bokföringsposter) and their units (kronor/öre). Combined with annotations covering safety and routing covered in usage, nothing needed 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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains year, month (unused) and orgnr. The description reinforces semantics by stating the calculation always concerns the whole fiscal year, which explains why month is ignored - a nuance the schema only gives implicitly.

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 (visar/läser) and resource (skatteberäkning och INK2 för ett räkenskapsår) and explicitly distinguishes itself from compute_tax and download_ink2_sru. An agent can choose it without opening any sibling 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 ('frågor om skatt och skattemässigt resultat') and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects them (compute_tax for INK2S/periodiseringsfond adjustments, download_ink2_sru for SRU files). Routing is unambiguous.

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