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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: the downstream consequence of each status, the note being visible to the employee, and the immutability of paid entries. It omits permission/role requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 action, then status semantics, constraint, scope and arguments in descending priority. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing 'Argument: ...' list is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcomes of each status and a key precondition, and annotations handle safety. Missing detail on who may attest, multi-entry partial-success behavior, and the return shape leaves it short of complete.

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 only 25% (orgnr alone is documented), so the description must carry the rest, and it does for the critical parameters: the allowed status values and their effects and the purpose of note are explained. entry_ids is only named without format or array-item semantics, which is the remaining gap.

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+resource ('Attestera eller avvisa rapporterade tidposter') and spells out the state semantics for each status value. The time-entry resource naturally separates it from voucher tools like reject_voucher_draft, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stays a notch below the top.

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?

Explains what each mode does (approved goes to next payroll run, rejected is sent back for correction, reported undoes the approval) and gives an explicit precondition that paid entries cannot be changed. It lacks named alternatives (e.g. use list_time_entries to view, delete_time_entry to remove), so it is clear context without routing.

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