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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot express: whether the draft is open in AI mode determines if unsaved changes are read live versus the last saved version, and no open tab is required in the saved case. It also discloses the sign-convention divergence (step-2 amounts positive in the guide vs. stored SIE signs) and that computed values are recalculated at document generation.

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 what it does and the primary use case before the edge cases, and every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and long, but there is little filler; a slight trim of the sign-convention aside would tighten it further.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, naming source, step and data for the selected section. Combined with the live/saved distinction, the sign-convention caveat, and the recomputation note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents section, draft_id and full, making 3 the baseline. The description goes past that by linking returned field names to update_fields' accepted inputs and by noting the 'source' value (live vs. saved), which is semantic information the parameter schema does not carry.

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 ('Läser innehållet i ett utkast, en del i taget') and pins the scope to a single section, which separates it from broad reads like get_state. It explicitly carves out sibling territory by directing tax results to read_tax and final computed values to preview_report, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('granska siffror och texter innan du föreslår ändringar eller trycker på Nästa') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions (read_tax for tax/INK2 results, preview_report for final values). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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