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.