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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: authentication is required, nothing is persisted until confirm_action is called, and the call returns a bekraftelseId. readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Inget sparas' at this step, though an agent should read the two sentences together; it does not disclose defaults or what happens to a draft that is never confirmed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the authentication requirement and the step number, then the crucial non-persistence rule. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

The two-step confirmation flow is well covered, but for a 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the meaning, units, and defaults of the inputs are entirely undocumented. An agent can sequence the call but cannot confidently supply the arguments.

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?

There are 12 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. An agent cannot learn the units or meaning of ar, ranta, elpris, bensinpris, kontantinsatsAndel, and so on, which the missing schema descriptions would otherwise supply.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource in Swedish: it creates a DRAFT ('UTKAST') of the profile and returns a confirmation id. This is clearly distinguished from the sibling confirm_action, which finalizes it, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

It gives explicit sequencing ('Steg 1 av 2') and names confirm_action as the required follow-up after explicit user approval, and it states that login is required. It does not say when this should not be used (for example, to view an existing profile via get_my_profile), but the core routing is present.

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