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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world creation call. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the draft starts empty, the returned link must be opened while logged in, and an existing draft should be reused rather than duplicated. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return value, then the usage condition, then the workflow. Every sentence carries operational value; the workflow guidance is slightly verbose but not 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (draft_id and url) and how to proceed afterward, including the duplicate-draft case. An agent has everything needed to call it and to handle the response correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes the call is parameterless in effect and instead documents the return values (draft_id, url), though those are outputs rather than inputs.

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 ('Skapar ett nytt, tomt årsredovisningsutkast') plus the return artifact (link to open in AI mode). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_drafts and upload_sie, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Använd när användaren vill göra en ny årsredovisning'), the follow-up action (open link, then upload_sie), and a clear exclusion/alternative: if a draft already exists for the company and year, use list_drafts instead.

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