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

It reveals behaviors not in annotations: determinism, no upload/storage/spend, first map free, no card/subscription, and metadata-only processing. All of this is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in a clear first sentence. There is slight noise from '(issue #36)' and the promotional pricing sentence, but the text remains compact and readable.

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 one-parameter read-only estimate tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, expected output (DKK list price and map contents), and key caveats (free first map, nothing stored/spent). No significant gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds 'FILE METADATA only' and 'never contents', reinforcing that files entries are metadata descriptors (path/bytes), not actual content. This is helpful beyond the schema's terse description.

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?

The description states a concrete function: submit file metadata and receive a DKK list price for a scan plus map contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling fetch/get/route/list tools, which are about retrieving or listing data rather than estimating cost.

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?

It clearly signals the use case: 'for mapping a company's own systems' and 'Free, instant, deterministic list price' with metadata-only input. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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