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

The sentence "Anropet kan förbruka en fri användning, även vid upprepning" discloses a real behavioral trait beyond the annotations: a quota is consumed even on repeat calls, which concretely explains the non-idempotent, non-read-only annotation profile. It does not say how many results are actually read or any further limits, but the quota warning is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey.

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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the cost warning second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. Nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter, open-world tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent learns the cost but not what the parameters accept or how many decisions come back, which matters for a tool that consumes quota per call.

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 six parameters (query, outcome, category, from_year, to_year, max_results), so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. The phrase "de första resultaten" weakly implies that a result-count limit exists, but nothing explains accepted values for outcome, category, or the year range, nor whether max_results controls results searched or decisions read.

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?

"Sök efter ARN-beslut och hämta den fullständiga beslutstexten för de första resultaten" names a specific verb (search) plus a second action (fetch full text) and the resource (ARN decisions). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not name arn_search or arn_get_decision to explain why the combined tool exists.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The description never says when an agent should pick this over arn_search (search only), arn_get_decision (read one decision), or arn_search_company_and_read, even though those siblings cover overlapping ground. Only the implicit notion of 'search plus full text in one call' hints at the choice.

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