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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it only switches the tab and changes no data, it may trigger a guide prompt about reviewing the balance sheet, and it returns a snapshot. That UI-state and side-effect disclosure goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with supporting notes on side effects and the read_draft routing following. Slightly more sentences than strictly needed (the guide-review detail is tangential), but every sentence carries 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 covers the return ("Returnerar snapshot efteråt"), the mutation-free nature, the workflow position, and the read_draft handoff. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor detail about the snapshot's content left implicit.

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 enum already maps income_statement/balance_sheet to their Swedish labels and explains draft_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Visar resultaträkningen eller balansräkningen i steg 2" states a specific verb (visar) and a specific resource, and adds that it only switches tabs rather than editing data. The explicit pointer to read_draft for the actual numbers cleanly separates it from the sibling that reads values, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

It names the alternative explicitly ("Siffrorna läses med read_draft"), which tells the agent when to use read_draft instead of this tool, and situates the tool in step 2 of the workflow. It does not state exclusions or preconditions for calling it, but the routing context is clear.

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