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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the corpus size (350 questions), that it returns best-matching answers, and that the husverket.se source is included. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how many results come back / when truncation occurs, leaving real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences with the resource and corpus size front-loaded, followed by the return behavior and the usage trigger. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (best-matching answers plus the husverket.se source). With all three parameters fully documented in the schema, the only missing pieces are the sibling-routing and ranking/limit behavior.

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% — query, limit (1-10, default 5) and language (sv/en, default sv) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, phrasing, or language-switching guidance beyond that, 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+resource ('Search Husverket's knowledge base of 350 Swedish house-building questions') and enumerates the topic scope. It clearly returns ranked matches rather than a single record, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_answer, which appears to live in the same domain.

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 explicit when-to-use framing: 'Use for any question about building, buying, pricing, permits, or floor plans for houses in Sweden/Norway/Denmark.' However it names no alternatives or exclusions, and its broad claim also covers the territory of siblings get_pricing and get_answer without routing the agent between them.

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