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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does this well: it discloses amounts are in kronor as originally filed, that data availability depends on digital filing, and that listed parent companies are missing. It stops short of explicitly stating response format or error behavior, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Hämta'.

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 description is dense but well-organized, with the core function first, then parameter behavior, then data-coverage caveats. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter, one-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: parameter behavior, currency, data coverage, and known gaps. It does not detail the exact response schema or empty-result handling, but nothing essential to choosing and invoking the tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for the 'ar' parameter by explaining the different output shapes when it is omitted versus provided, going beyond the schema's bare description of 'Räkenskapsårets slutår'.

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?

Description states a specific resource: 'Fullständig resultat- och balansräkning ur bolagets egen årsredovisning' – a clear verb-plus-resource definition. It distinguishes itself from siblings (hamta_foretag, sok_foretag) by focusing on bokslut rather than company records.

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?

The description gives clear parameter-dependent usage: without 'ar' all years are returned as a summary; with 'ar' the full statement is returned item by item. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over sibling tools like hamta_foretag or sok_foretag; the routing is only implied by the tool name and subject matter.

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