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.