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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the required server-side state (AI mode, step 3) and the instruction not to recompute platform numbers. It does not, however, describe failure behavior or what happens if the preconditions aren't met.

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 purpose, then preconditions, then the return contents. All three blocks carry real information, though the enumerated return list is dense and slightly verbose. Nothing is redundant enough to flag as waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly (result contents, to_book, ink2r_balanced, sru_ready). Combined with the precondition and navigation guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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% and the single parameter (draft_id) is already fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_drafts) and ownership constraint. The description adds nothing about draft_id, so the 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 (Läser/Reads) and resource (skatteberäkningen and INK2), and pins the scope to 'exactly as step 3 in the web guide shows them'. It also names the sibling that handles the follow-up mutation (apply_tax_adjustment), so the agent can distinguish this read tool from the adjustment tool.

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 explicit preconditions (draft must be open in AI mode and standing on step 3) and names the navigation tools (next_step, go_to_step) to reach that state. It further routes the follow-up action to apply_tax_adjustment, so when-to-use and what-to-do-next are both explicit.

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