List your comparison zones (Jämförelseobjekt)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' and 'never writes' are not contradictory. It adds valuable behavior context beyond annotations: tenant-scoping, lean-by-default behavior, and that detail:true opts into a tenant-filtered containsPropertyUnits lineage.

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?

Four concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads purpose and read-only status, the second explains the workflow, the third clarifies parameter defaults with an example, and the fourth reinforces tenant scoping. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with 5 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage flow, parameter nuances, tenant scoping, and read-only safety. Pagination is handled by schema. No significant gaps remain.

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 extra semantics for the 'detail' parameter by explaining the lean default and the tenant-filtered lineage, and gives a concrete example for nameContains ('Stockholm'). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb+resource: 'List YOUR comparison zones' and clarifies what is returned (sedisId). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting these are 'your clones of a Sedis-owned aggregate' and positions it as the first step of a flow.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is the 'FIRST step of the §8 A6 flow' and explicitly names the next tool to use with the returned sedisId. It distinguishes 'your' zones from 'Sedis-owned' aggregates, though it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use sibling tools like list_reference_zones.

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