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 fully covered by structured data. The description contributes only 'Ingen input', which merely restates the empty schema, and says nothing about whether the data is static or dynamic, or about permissions. It adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the resource and its contents stated first. The Danish sentence is a near-verbatim translation of the English one, so the content is delivered twice; helpful for a Danish audience but not maximally economical.

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 parameterless, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the fields returned (phone, email, hours, form link, consultation-booking link). What remains unstated, such as the response format or data freshness, is minor for a tool this simple.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Ingen input' / no input, which aligns with the empty schema and correctly sets the agent's expectation that the call is parameterless.

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 ('Get Gulvbuddy's phone number, email, opening hours and contact links') and enumerates the returned fields, which no sibling tool (prisindeks, soeg_svar, start_booking, ydelser) provides. An agent can immediately tell this is the contact-info tool.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when the user asks for contact details or the consultation booking link. However, no alternatives are named, no when-not-to-use is given, and the relationship to siblings like start_booking (which actually books) is left to inference.

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