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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's value-add is the output semantics: results are a range (spænd fra og til), omitted fields widen the range to cover all options, and the result is advisory only pending on-site measurement. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return format/pagination is not described.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the English opening sentence and the Danish sentences restate the same content, so a meaningful share of the text is bilingual duplication rather than additive information.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the estimation behavior (range, not a quote, omission semantics) reasonably but leaves the seven inputs unexplained. For a tool with 5 enum fields and a regex-constrained field, that is a notable gap.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only states generically that omitted fields produce a range. It never explains m2, slid, omfang, traesort, behandling, slebet_foer, or the pattern-constrained farve string, leaving an agent to guess at enum meanings.

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 names a specific verb (estimate the price) and resource (sanding/refinishing an existing wood floor), plus locale and currency/VAT scope. 'Existing' implicitly separates it from the sibling estimer_traegulv, but it never names that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 sets expectations ('an estimate is not a quote; the fixed price comes after measurement'), which implies when this tool is appropriate versus a booking tool like start_booking, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to estimer_traegulv or forklar_prisen.

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