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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only info lookup and adds the useful qualifier 'verified facts', but says nothing about return format, freshness, or whether results are static. Adequate for a trivial no-arg getter, 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 sentences, no filler, with the resource and content scope front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Efficient and well-ordered.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fact categories the tool returns, which is the key missing information. An agent has enough to decide and call it, though freshness/return-shape details are 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 content domains returned (founding, size, products, specs, warranties, delivery, trust signals). This gives an agent a clear sense of scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_pricing or search_husverket.

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?

'Use when asked who Husverket is or why choose them' gives clear triggering intent for the tool. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary against get_pricing/search_husverket, but the context is solid.

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