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

Annotations already establish the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing provenance ('med källor från Försäkringskassan') and the fact that the return set is exhaustive ('alla'), which tells the agent no pagination or filtering is needed.

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: verb, scope, year, enumerated contents, then provenance. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the parenthetical list is compact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly which rule values come back plus their authoritative source. Paired with annotations that cover the safety profile and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description correctly gives no parameter guidance. The enumerated field list describes what the (implicit) response contains rather than any input, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Hämta') and a precisely scoped resource ('alla regelvärden för föräldrapenning 2026') and enumerates the returned fields (dagar, tak, grund- och lägstanivå, prisbasbelopp, formel). This makes it clearly the raw-data lookup versus the sibling tools calc_benefit, explain_rule and plan_leave, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrasing 'alla regelvärden' implies this is the source-of-truth fetch that should precede calc_benefit or explain_rule, but the description never states when to use it instead of those siblings or any ordering/prerequisite. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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