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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful output-behavior context that annotations cannot: the answer is in pre-approved company wording and deliberately contains no figures or percentages, plus the one-topic-per-call constraint.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the English sentence and the Danish sentence say largely the same thing, and the enum list is duplicated from the schema. Half the text is restatement rather than new 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 single-parameter, read-only explanation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the topic list, the one-topic constraint and the no-numbers/approved-wording output contract. Only per-topic meaning and sibling routing are absent.

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 is the only prose about the parameter, and it does list the six valid emne values. However, that merely repeats the schema enum without explaining what each topic covers, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (explain) and object (Gulvbuddy's price) and narrows scope to a single topic chosen from six enumerated options. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like prisindeks or soeg_svar, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Giver en godkendt forklaring på ét emne' implies one topic per call and the enum enumerates valid inputs, so the usage is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over prisindeks, hent_guide or soeg_svar, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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