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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes further and specifies exactly what is overwritten: existing company details and signatories in step 6 unless manually changed. It also notes the return value ('Returnerar snapshot efteråt'), which matters since there is no output schema. All of this is consistent with the annotations.

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-loaded with the core action, then sequencing and side effects. Every sentence carries information (what it fills, what it replaces, the prerequisite, the return). Slightly dense with step references, but no wasted text.

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 compensates by noting it returns a snapshot, and it covers authoritative side effects, required prerequisites, and where the org number comes from. An agent has enough to call it correctly; the minor gap is the absence of explicit failure/auth behavior for the open-world Bolagsverket 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 100%, so both parameters (org_nr, draft_id) are fully documented in the schema, making a 3 the baseline. The description adds only the workflow hint that org_nr originates from the SIE file or the search field, which is marginal additional 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?

Specific verb (hämtar/fyller i) plus resource (företagsuppgifterna från Bolagsverket) and a precise list of what gets populated (namn, räkenskapsår, företrädare, säte, verksamhet). It also names fill_input as a related tool, so an agent can separate this fetch-and-fill action from generic field editing siblings.

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?

States a clear precondition ('Krävs innan steg 1 kan lämnas') and explains the input flow for org_nr (from the SIE file, or written into the search field with fill_input first). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the context is actionable.

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