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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns a viewable image and requires 'Scope view', which the annotations don't convey.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, applicability, and the argument/scope. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, the 'image' status gating, and the required scope. Only edge cases (non-image status, error behavior) are unaddressed.

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 0% for the single policy_id parameter, so the description must carry meaning, yet it only names the argument. The pointer to list_policies/read_policy hints at the ID's origin, which is some compensation but not full semantics.

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 (read/Läs) and resource (bildunderlag) and clarifies the outcome as 'en bild du kan titta på', distinguishing it from text-based underlag handling. It doesn't name a direct sibling alternative, but the described scope is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to documents with status 'image' and points the agent to list_policies/read_policy for that status. This is clear context for when to use it, though it stops short of describing what to use for non-image underlag.

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