get_annual_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It does not say whether 'available' means a filtered or partial set, what form the reports take (links, PDFs, IDs), whether an empty result is possible for a valid org number, or whether access is restricted. The read-only nature is only implied by 'List'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy, appropriately sized for a one-parameter listing tool. It is efficient, though that efficiency is partly achieved by omitting information covered in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter is fully documented by the schema, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source for return-value expectations and it says nothing about what a 'report' entry contains or how many come back. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for interpreting the result.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the Swedish organisation number format and supplying examples. The description adds no meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, 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+resource combination ('List available annual reports') scoped to a single company, which is unambiguous and clearly not overlapping with siblings like get_company_timeline or analyze_company_financials. It stops short of explicitly naming what distinguishes it from those data-oriented siblings, so it lands just below the top tier.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description: an agent infers it should call this when it needs report documents rather than timeline or financial analysis. For a simple single-purpose list tool that inference is reasonable, but nothing in the text supports it.

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