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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: cursor-based pagination ('pass next_cursor to get the next page') and a required attribution/license obligation (Aleva, CC BY 4.0), which the agent would otherwise not know.

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?

It is a single compact paragraph that front-loads identity and pagination before the field enumeration. The field list is long but earns its place as a stand-in for the absent output schema; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating returned fields plus types is exactly the missing piece, and pagination and licensing are covered. It stops short of explaining filtering combinations or the tool's relationship to sibling catalogue tools, but for a read-only list endpoint it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the nine parameters are already documented in the schema, and this is the baseline-3 case. The description's field list mirrors the schema's output fields rather than clarifying filter semantics (e.g. equals vs any-of vs range), so it adds little parameter meaning.

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 title and first clause 'Swedish public APIs (OpenAPI)' mostly restate the tool name, and 'Returns a list of records' is generic. The field list (oas_version, spec URL, operations, paths) does imply the resource is a catalogue of Swedish public OpenAPI specs, but there is no explicit verb+resource statement and no differentiation from the many sibling 'web_*' catalogue tools.

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 description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_catalogue, describe_endpoint, web_agents, or web_llms, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the field list.

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