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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real value: it names the objects created (tomma resultat- och balansräkningar), states the state guard limiting when it may run, and notes a snapshot is returned. It stops short of describing failure modes if the precondition is violated.

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 action, then the side effect, then the precondition, then downstream steps. Four short sentences, none redundant.

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?

A write tool with one fully-documented param and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, guards, side effects, downstream tools, and the return ('snapshot'). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and in the right order.

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 draft_id parameter is fully documented there (including the 'must belong to the connected account' constraint). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Väljer manuell inmatning i steg 1') and immediately scopes it to the no-SIE-file case. It also spells out the side effect (skapar tomma resultat- och balansräkningar), which lets an agent distinguish it from the SIE siblings like upload_sie and create_sie_upload.

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 an explicit precondition ('när det inte finns någon SIE-fil') and an exclusion ('Går bara att välja innan någon SIE-fil eller några företagsuppgifter finns i utkastet'). It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools (update_fields, fill_input, fetch_company_details), so sequencing is unambiguous.

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