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

The second sentence adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call consumes a free usage quota even when repeated, which explains and reinforces the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations rather than contradicting them. It does not explain what openWorldHint=true means here or what shape the results take.

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, purpose first and the quota warning second, with no filler. Slightly more room could have been used to document the filters without becoming verbose.

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 tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the majority of call-shaping information (filter meanings, default behavior, return shape) unaddressed. The quota note is the only substantive addition beyond the title.

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, and the description only clarifies the required 'problem' argument implicitly. Filters such as outcome, category, from_year, to_year and max_results are left entirely undecoded, including what values 'obegransad' or 'alla' 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?

States a specific verb and resource in 'Hitta tidigare ARN-beslut' plus the scope condition 'som kan vara relevanta för ett beskrivet konsumentproblem'. It distinguishes the tool from a plain lookup, though it never names which sibling (e.g. arn_search or arn_get_decision) covers the non-similarity path.

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: reach for this when you have a described consumer problem and want precedent decisions. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison with arn_search or arn_search_and_read, so the agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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