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

The description discloses something the annotations cannot express: the call may consume one free usage even on repeated identical calls, which is critical cost information for an agent that might retry or loop. This is consistent with the non-readOnly and non-idempotent hints, though the return format and result limits remain unstated.

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 purpose front-loaded, followed by searchable facets and the quota warning. No filler, though the quota sentence is the only one carrying non-obvious 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?

A five-parameter open-world search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs far more than three sentences. Missing are the meaning and accepted values of the four filters, whether `query` is required alongside filters, and any indication of result size or pagination.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only reaches the `query` parameter indirectly via the facet list. The filter parameters outcome, category, from_year, and to_year — whose defaults ("obegransad", "alla", empty strings) are opaque — are never explained, so an agent cannot know what values they accept.

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 and resource ("Sök efter ARN-beslut") and enumerates the searchable facets (ärendenummer, produkt, företag, problem, fritext), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as arn_search_and_read or arn_search_company, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 listed search facets imply typical queries but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over arn_search_and_read, arn_search_company, or arn_similar_cases. An agent facing five overlapping search siblings gets no routing guidance and no exclusions.

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