Husverket – Swedish Prefab Houses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the returned content is 'full bilingual' as opposed to a truncated/search result, which is modest added context rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and folding the id format into the same clause. Every element 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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly with a valid id. It could do slightly more (e.g. what 'bilingual' returns or error behavior for a bad id), but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with the same q001 example. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (full bilingual answer for a knowledge-base entry) with the lookup key. It is clear on its own, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_husverket, which an agent might reasonably confuse for answer retrieval.

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 'by its id (e.g. q001)' phrasing implies the tool requires a known entry id, which is mild usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to the search sibling for resolving unknown ids.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope but no behavioral detail beyond that, such as return format or caching behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, with the resource and its content scope front-loaded before the usage trigger. Every clause 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?

With no parameters and rich annotations, the main gap an agent faces is what comes back; the description enumerates the fact categories, effectively standing in for an absent output schema. That covers the essentials, though exact return structure remains unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No schema-level semantics are needed for an argument-less call.

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 (Get) and resource (verified facts about Husverket AB), then enumerates the fact categories covered (founding, size, products, specs, warranties, delivery, trust signals). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing and list_house_models.

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 trigger: 'Use when asked who Husverket is or why choose them.' This is clear context for invocation, but it names no exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., when to prefer get_answer or search_husverket instead).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that prices are 'turnkey' and quoted 'from SEK', which is useful domain context, but discloses nothing about result set size, sorting, or ordering.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the data being fetched and followed by the optional filters. No filler.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter lookup whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. A note on price semantics (e.g. whether 'from SEK' is a starting price) or the absence of pagination would close the remaining gap.

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%, with both parameters documented (including the category enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates that category and max price are filters without adding format or boundary semantics beyond what the schema gives.

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: retrieving Husverket's 2026 turnkey prices scoped to two house categories. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_house_models or get_company_info, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

'Optionally filter by category or max price' implies a lookup use case, but there is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as search_husverket or list_house_models.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the return shape (categories plus per-category question counts), which is modest extra context for a safe read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information (scope of 7, included counts). No filler.

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 no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (the 7 categories and their question counts), which is the key missing piece. It stops short of describing ordering or format, but nothing essential is absent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by describing a fixed set of 7 categories.

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 (List) and resource (Husverket knowledge categories), and even quantifies the scope (7) plus the payload (question counts). An agent can distinguish this from get_answer, search_husverket and the other siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is a zero-parameter browse call, so there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. A reader can infer it is the discovery entry point, but the description does not say so.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the returned fields (size in m2, model page link, price 'where available'), which is valuable since there is no output schema and flags that price may be absent.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the filter capability following. Minor redundancy in re-listing the four type values that already appear as the schema enum.

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 zero-required-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to filter it. Only pagination/result-count behavior is unaddressed, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description restates the same filter concepts (type, size range) without adding syntax, units, or boundary behavior beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List Husverket's house models') and enumerates the four model types it covers, so the agent knows exactly what domain this returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_husverket, which is the only gap.

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 closing sentence 'Filter by type and/or size range' gives implied usage for the two filter axes, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over search_husverket or the other sibling listing tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the corpus size (350 questions), the returned content ('best-matching answers with the husverket.se source'), and the supported countries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and corpus description before the usage trigger. The parenthetical topic list is slightly long but earns its place by signaling the retrieval domain.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned (matching answers plus source) and the annotations carry the safety semantics; parameters are fully schema-documented. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, language) are already documented with types, defaults, and ranges. The description adds domain vocabulary and language notes but 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 ('Search Husverket's knowledge base') and scopes the corpus size and topic domain concretely. It does not, however, clearly distinguish itself from siblings like get_answer or get_pricing, which appear to cover overlapping answer/pricing territory.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger ('Use for any question about building, buying, pricing, permits, or floor plans'), but no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternatives. The listed triggers (pricing, answers) overlap with sibling tools, so the agent gets no help choosing between them.

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