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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world safety, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the login requirement and the precedence rule ('Argument i anropet överstyr profilen'). It does not say what the response contains or whether costs are gross estimates.

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 sentences with the login requirement front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly dense parenthetical list, but every clause carries information.

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 13-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, inputs source and override precedence, which is the core. It still omits what the calculation returns (single figure vs breakdown) and several parameters, leaving gaps an agent would hit.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It enumerates the profile fields (mil/år, år, anskaffning, försäkring, energipris, ränta) and states the override rule, but leaves postort, drivmedel, budgetPerManad and kontantinsatsAndel unmentioned and gives no units or formats.

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: 'Räknar total månadskostnad för en bil', and identifies where bilId comes from (find_car). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like total_cost, compare_cars or explain_costs, which likely also compute costs.

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?

'Kräver inloggning' establishes a precondition and the bilId provenance points to find_car, which is useful implied routing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus total_cost or compare_cars, so the agent must infer which cost tool applies.

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