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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the code posts a reversing voucher and that it is blocked when a denied amount is already paid — meaningful context beyond annotations. It does not state idempotency or auth scope beyond 'Scope book'.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism. The terse 'KODEN postar. Scope book.' fragments are efficient if a bit cryptic.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, a blocking condition, and posting behavior, but omits required permissions, idempotency, and the meaning/format of request_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%; orgnr is well described in the schema (format and list_companies hint), but request_id has no description in schema or tool description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Backa/reverse) and resource (ROT/RUT-utbetalning) with the mechanism noted (postar ett omvänt verifikat). It is distinguishable from register_rot_rut_payout and delete_rot_rut_request, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 one exclusion: 'Går inte om kunden redan betalat ett nekat belopp.' But it doesn't say when to choose this over delete_rot_rut_request or other reversal tools, so usage is only partially guided.

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