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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return value ('Returnerar clicked och snapshot efteråt'), a step-based limitation (step 7 payment/signing/submission is manual), the source of valid button labels (snapshot.actions via get_state), and an authorization/consent requirement ('Fråga användaren innan du svarar på frågor åt hen').

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 usage cases, alternatives and constraints in a logical order. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph is longer than strictly necessary.

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 states the return shape, and it covers the routing rules, the step-7 limitation and the consent requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains label, context and draft_id in detail, including the exact source and disambiguation role of context. The description only restates that buttons come from snapshot.actions, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 target ('Trycker på en knapp eller Ja/Nej-fråga i själva formuläret, som när användaren klickar'), which precisely distinguishes it from answer_prompt (dialoger) and next_step (gå vidare). An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening any 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 cases (Ja/Nej-frågor, hämta företagsuppgifter från Bolagsverket, automatisk skattejustering i steg 3) and explicit alternatives ('Dialoger ... besvaras med answer_prompt i stället', 'Gå vidare med next_step, inte med den här'). It even names a hard exclusion ('Fungerar inte i steg 7').

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