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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output is a range (from-to), it is explicitly not a binding quote, and omitting fields broadens the range rather than failing. This is genuine added value, though return shape and cost of the estimate call are 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and estimate-vs-quote caveat, with no filler. The Danish/English code-switching is slightly awkward but each sentence contributes distinct 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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is thin. It explains the estimate's nature and range behavior but not what comes back, how the DKK figures are structured, or what any of the enums and patterned string fields mean, leaving the agent under-equipped for a complex invocation.

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?

With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs, yet it names none of them. The single meta-rule (omitted fields become a range) is helpful for how to fill the schema but leaves every parameter's meaning, units, and accepted values undocumented in both places.

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 ('Estimate the price of a new wood floor installed in Denmark'), including currency and VAT treatment. The word 'nyt' (new) implicitly separates it from the sibling estimer_slibning (sanding), though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides useful framing: 'Et estimat er ikke et tilbud; den faste pris kommer efter opmåling' sets expectations, and the note that omitted fields widen the result to a range guides invocation. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings such as estimer_slibning, forklar_prisen, or valgmuligheder, so routing is only implied.

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