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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond them by naming the three outcome states an agent must interpret in the result; it omits any mention of lookup sources, fallbacks, or behavior when neither identifier is supplied.

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 English sentence and the Danish restatement convey the same content, roughly doubling length without adding information. The outcome enumeration is genuinely useful, but the bilingual duplication makes it less front-loaded than it could be.

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?

With a 2-param schema fully described, no required parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description supplies what the agent needs: what is checked and what the outcomes mean. Only the behavior when neither parameter is given is left unaddressed.

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%, and the schema itself states each field's meaning plus the either/or rule in both property descriptions. The description's 'Angiv enten postnummer eller kommune' reinforces mutual exclusivity but adds virtually nothing new, so 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 and resource: check whether Gulvbuddy serves a Danish postcode or municipality, and enumerates the three possible outcomes (dækket, forespørgsel, uden for dækning). It is distinguishable from siblings like ydelser and start_booking, though it never names one.

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 closing sentence 'Angiv enten postnummer eller kommune' implies how to call it, and the context of a coverage check implies when. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as ydelser or start_booking, and no stated precondition sequence.

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