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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds context those hints cannot convey: the AI-mode prerequisite, the explicit 'inget skickas in och inget betalas' no-side-effect guarantee, and the fact that generation uses the same code path as the step-7 preview (so output is representative). That is meaningful value beyond 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-loads the purpose, then usage, precondition, side effects, and return format in short declarative sentences. Slightly more content than strictly needed for a one-parameter read tool, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 usefully documents the return value (line-by-line text with '|' separating table cells, plus characters), and it covers the prerequisite and side-effect profile. The only missing element is an explicit pointer to which sibling to use if you do not want the full document (e.g., read_draft).

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema description already has 100% coverage, including where draft_id comes from (list_drafts) and the account-ownership constraint. The description adds nothing about draft_id beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Förhandsgranskar årsredovisningen som text') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling read_draft by scoping the output to the whole document generated by the same code as the step-7 preview. An agent can tell this apart from list_drafts/read_draft 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: read through the entire document before the user proceeds to step 7 and to verify that changes landed correctly. It also states the enabling precondition ('Kräver att utkastet är öppet i AI-läge'). It stops short of naming alternative siblings for the same task, so not a full 5.

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