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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial behavior: results are sorted most-recently-changed first, status values are enumerated with their meanings (draft/submitted/registered/rejected/action_required), the current step span (1–7) is disclosed, and each item carries a web link.

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 essential fact (saved drafts, newest first) and then a compact usage sentence followed by a return-field list. The return enumeration is long but each field earns its place for a tool with no output schema.

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 fully carries the burden: it names every returned field (draft_id, company name, org number, fiscal year, status, step, paid flag, last-modified UTC, link) and decodes the status vocabulary. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single org_nr parameter already documents the hyphen-optional format with an example. The description never mentions filtering by organisation number, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('Listar användarens sparade årsredovisningsutkast') with an ordering guarantee, and pins the concept to a concrete user-visible surface ('Samma utkast som syns under Mina sidor på digitalk2.se'). This clearly separates it from the singular sibling read_draft.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find the right draft to continue working on, or to check whether a report is already paid or submitted. It gives positive conditions but does not name alternatives (e.g. read_draft for a single draft) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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