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. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that concrete floor pricing is out of scope for the answer — but the enumerated return contents (question/title, answer, URL) duplicate what the output schema already provides.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The remainder mixes English and Danish, repeats the input description that the schema already covers, and includes a somewhat redundant enumeration of return fields, so several clauses do not earn their 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?

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish purpose, scope and the price exclusion — all of which are present. A minor gap is that it does not say how many matches are returned or how ties between Q&A and guides are resolved, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, with both spoergsmaal (3-300 chars) and the emne enum documented in the schema itself, plus a 300-char limit. The description only restates 'spørgsmålet og et valgfrit emne' and adds no guidance on choosing an emne value or phrasing the question, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: answer a question about Danish wood floors and Gulvbuddy, returning a canonical URL to cite. The Danish follow-up clarifies it searches Q&A entries and guides and returns the best match plus page address. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 by 'Answer a question about Danish wood floors and Gulvbuddy', and the closing line 'Prisen på et konkret gulv er ikke en del af svaret' is an explicit when-not signal. However, no alternative tool is named for those price questions (forklar_prisen and prisindeks exist as siblings), so the routing is left to the agent's inference.

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