get_avskrivningssatser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key trait: 'No authentication required.' However, it doesn't mention whether the rates are current/historical, the return format, or any limitations. For a simple zero-parameter lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the purpose with helpful parenthetical examples, the second notes authentication requirements. Every word earns its place with no fluff, making it exemplary for a simple tool.

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 extremely simple: zero parameters, no output schema. The description fully covers its purpose, scope (asset classes), and an important access detail (auth). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty, and with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description confirms no input is needed ('Get depreciation rates for different classes'), so there is nothing additional to explain.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get depreciation rates (avskrivningssatser) for different classes of business assets.' It uses a specific verb ('get') with a specific resource ('depreciation rates') and provides examples of asset classes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mva_satser and get_skattesatser.

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 offers clear context for when to use the tool: whenever depreciation rates for business assets are needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct that an agent would correctly select it over sibling rate tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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