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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description supplies the crucial detail annotations cannot: that true zeroes prior-year income-statement and balance-sheet figures and that they 'do not come back with false' — an explicit irreversibility warning. It also notes the false-branch dependency on prior fiscal-year dates.

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 purpose, then the true/false branches, then the caution. Every sentence carries information; slightly dense but no filler.

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?

For a state-mutating workflow tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the irreversibility, the conditional dependency, the required user confirmation, and the return ('Returnerar snapshot efteråt'). Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes further by explaining the downstream consequences of the is_first boolean rather than merely restating its meaning, adding real semantic value beyond the schema text.

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 (sets the 'first annual report' flag) and immediately explains the concrete effect of each value, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs from generic field setters like update_fields.

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 clear condition for use ('answers the question in step 1'), branch-specific guidance for true vs false, and an explicit instruction to ask the user first. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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