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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context: the required draft state (open in AI mode, on step 3) and the directive not to recompute the platform's figures. It does not, however, cover failure modes or what happens if the preconditions are unmet.

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 return shape; each sentence carries information. The return-value enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an 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 carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, naming result, to_book, ink2r_balanced and sru_ready and explaining the to_book follow-up action via press_button. Preconditions and platform-calculation caveat close the remaining gaps.

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 parameter (draft_id) is fully documented in the schema itself, including the ownership constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (read) and resource (the tax calculation and INK2), plus a precise scope anchor: 'exakt som steg 3 i webbguiden visar dem'. An agent can distinguish this from read_draft or preview_report 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 preconditions are given ('Kräver att utkastet är öppet i AI-läge och står på steg 3') along with the alternative tools to satisfy them ('gå dit med next_step eller go_to_step'). Nothing about when this tool is callable 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.