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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it writes only a SUBSET of fields, requires user approval first, and returns the updated status response. It does not describe what happens to unspecified fields or error behavior, keeping it short of 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?

A single dense but front-loaded paragraph that opens with the action, then the return shape, field-name convention, unit convention, scope, and arguments. No filler sentences, though the run-on style packs several concerns into one block.

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 still tells the agent the response mirrors get_arsredovisning_status. Combined with the note on nested-object field provenance and whole-kronor units, it is nearly complete for this complexity, missing only explicit failure/validation behavior.

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 33% (just orgnr), but the description compensates: it documents that inputs is a dict of exact field names from buildUserInputs/ixbrl_inputs with examples (sate, verksamhet, inkludera_utdelning), and specifies that amounts are in whole kronor. This meaningfully extends the bare 'object' schema.

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 in Swedish ('Skriv en delmängd av årsredovisningens user_inputs till utkastet'), names the destination (draft) and the return shape (same form as get_arsredovisning_status). Gives concrete example field names so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like edit_annual_report_draft without opening a 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?

Explicitly encodes the workflow precondition ('assistenten föreslår, användaren godkänner, sedan skriv') and states the scope ('Scope statutory'). It does not, however, explicitly route the agent away from edit_annual_report_draft, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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