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 useful provenance ('from SEK, as listed on husverket.se'), which tells the agent the data is a static price list rather than live quotes, but it says nothing about what the response contains or whether results are exhaustive.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, and data source, then names the optional filters. Nothing redundant for the amount of information conveyed.

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 small read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that with no output schema the description could hint at the return shape (a list of house models with prices), leaving the agent to infer it.

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 both parameters are already documented and the enum is enumerated in the schema. The description restates the same two filters ('category or max price') without adding format or unit detail (though SEK is mentioned, which the schema also implies). 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 (get prices) plus the exact product scope (attefallshus, fritidshus) and dataset year (2026). It implicitly separates itself from list_house_models and search_husverket by being price-focused, but it never explicitly names or distinguishes those siblings.

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' tells the agent the filters are optional but gives no guidance on when to call this instead of search_husverket or list_house_models, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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