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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the three possible result states (dækket, forespørgsel, uden for dækning), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It does not mention input validation behavior for malformed postcodes or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the English purpose statement. The Danish sentence's opening clause largely restates the first sentence, but its second half contributes new information (the three outcome values), so overall waste is limited.

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 coverage lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it answers, the accepted inputs, and the enumerated result states. Gaps are minor (behavior when neither or both params are provided, invalid-format handling) and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 must carry the load; it does explain that either a postnummer or a kommune is acceptable and implies mutual exclusivity, which the schema does not express (required is empty, additionalProperties false). However it adds no format detail beyond the schema's patterns (4-digit postcode, alphabetic municipality name) and does not say what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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: checking whether Gulvbuddy serves a given Danish postcode or municipality. This is unambiguous and clearly separable from the pricing, estimation, and booking siblings, and it even names the domain of the input (Danish postcode/municipality).

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 description implies its usage (a service-area check) but never states when to call it relative to alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as 'call this before start_booking'. The only actionable instruction, 'Angiv enten postnummer eller kommune', is an input constraint rather than usage guidance, though it does usefully clarify that at least one of the two optional params must be supplied.

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