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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation value by disclosing the return shape (full guide as markdown, identical figures to the page, plus canonical URL), which is important given there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown slug, but it is otherwise informative.

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 text is short and front-loads the what-it-does clause, which is good. However, the same content is stated twice in English and Danish, so roughly half the text is redundant rather than earning its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: what is returned (markdown guide plus canonical URL), what the input is, and where to find it. Only edge cases such as invalid or missing slugs and any access restrictions are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the safety annotations.

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% – the schema only gives type/length constraints – so the description must carry the meaning of 'slug'. It does: it identifies the parameter as the guide's slug taken from the URL of the guide, which tells the agent where to source a valid value. That is meaningful semantic addition, though no format examples are given.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get a full Gulvbuddy guide') and states the output form (markdown plus canonical URL), which is far more concrete than the vague sibling names (ydelser, soeg_svar). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but a guide-retrieval tool is readily distinguishable from the booking/pricing/question siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual hint ('guidens slug, som står i adressen på guiden') explains where the argument comes from, not when an agent should reach for this tool over siblings such as soeg_svar or ydelser.

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