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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: answers come with a source from Försäkringskassan. It still does not say whether the response is free text, how long it is, or what happens for out-of-scope questions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical is a compact scope specifier. The dense enumeration makes it slightly hard to parse but every element carries routing 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on scope but silent on return shape (beyond 'with source') and on the closest sibling get_rules_2026, which is the most likely source of mis-selection. Complete enough to call, not complete enough to route confidently.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. The parenthetical topic list effectively bounds what 'fraga' may concern, which is real added value, but the parameter itself is never named or characterized (question text? keywords? language?), leaving the agent to guess the expected input form.

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 gives a specific verb ('Förklara') and a specific resource ('en regel om föräldrapenning/föräldraledighet 2026') and even enumerates the covered subtopics (dagar, tak, dubbeldagar, spara dagar, grundnivå, skatt, VAB). An agent can tell what it does, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_rules_2026, which appears to address the same knowledge domain.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated topic list suggests 'use this when the question concerns one of these areas'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_rules_2026 or calc_benefit, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing.

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