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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the mechanism (simulating a button press), the required user-consent step, and names the return values (clicked and a snapshot) despite there being no output schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then boundaries, then the consent rule, then the return. Each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated or filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the return shape (clicked text plus snapshot) and the alternative routing for form questions. It stops short of covering edge cases such as a mismatched option or duplicate button labels beyond the `prompt` hint, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 every parameter (option, prompt, inputs, draft_id) is already well documented in the schema, including examples. The description adds only indirect context (`förifyllning från förra året` as a typical prompt type), so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it answers a dialog shown by the guide by pressing the same button the user would. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is NOT for (form questions handled by set_first_annual_report and update_fields). An agent can route correctly without opening any other schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (only prompts returned by get_state and next_step, e.g. prefill from last year, small deviation confirmation, reminder), when-not (form questions: step 1 via set_first_annual_report, steps 3-6 via update_fields), and an operational rule to always explain the question and obtain an explicit user answer first.

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