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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes sizes, prices and stock, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about missing-product behavior or whether a URL must be a flowering.dk product URL.

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 front-loaded sentence with the returned fields stated early and the lookup keys at the end; no filler. It could only be improved by adding the identifier-precedence rule rather than more prose.

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 read-only two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it is addressed. Gaps remain around identifier precedence, not-found/error behavior, and the fact that the description is in Danish while the tool name and siblings are English.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does map both parameters by naming product ID and URL and scopes the URL to flowering.dk. It does not say whether one identifier is preferred when both are supplied, nor any URL format, and required count is 0 so the 'at least one needed' rule is unstated.

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 ('hent ét produkt') plus the scope of the payload ('alle størrelser, priser og lager') and the two accepted identifiers. This clearly separates it from a bulk/list tool like search_products, though it never names that sibling.

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?

The phrase 'ud fra produkt-ID eller url' implies the caller must already hold an identifier, which hints that this is a follow-up to a search, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated and no alternative is named.

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