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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that the returned answer is 'full' and 'bilingual' (both languages), which tells the agent what to expect from the payload. It omits any note on read-only safety, error behavior for unknown ids, or rate limits.

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, with no filler. The parenthetical example is the only extra and it earns its place by clarifying the id format.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the lookup key and characterizes the return as a full bilingual answer. A brief pointer to where ids come from (e.g. search_husverket) 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'Entry id such as q001.' The description only restates that same example, adding no format or validity constraints beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb (get), resource (full bilingual answer), and lookup key (knowledge-base entry id such as q001), which clearly separates it from the search/list siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_company_info/get_pricing or search_husverket, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_husverket, and no hint that the id likely comes from a prior search. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by its id'.

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