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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond them by flagging that the answer is time-sensitive ("hvis der bestilles nu") and that no address is required. It does not cover cut-off times, caching, or what the result looks like, but it is materially more informative than the annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the one invocation constraint. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 simple, read-only, two-parameter check with no output schema, the description says enough about what the call answers and what input is needed. The one gap is the optional product_id path, which is left entirely to the schema and could change the result for funeral products.

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?

Coverage is 50%: postcode has only a regex pattern in the schema and the description confirms it is the sole required input, while product_id carries its own schema description (optional; funeral products have separate rules). The description's claim of taking "kun postnummer" does not explain the optional product_id and could nudge an agent to omit it when the funeral-products exception actually 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: check whether Flowering delivers to a given postcode, plus whether same-day delivery is still possible. It is clear what question the tool answers, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_delivery_zones, so an agent cannot tell from the text which one to reach for.

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?

"Tager kun postnummer, ingen adresse" gives a practical input constraint that tells the agent not to hunt for an address before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_delivery_zones or search_products, and no statement of when the tool is inappropriate (e.g. bulk zone lookups).

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