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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful scope constraints (best matches are a question/title, answer, and URL; pricing of a specific floor is excluded) but does not describe ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or the response shape in detail.

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 description mixes two languages (English and Danish) and states the same idea twice (search Q&A and guides). It is short enough but somewhat redundant rather than tightly front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the basic intent and exclusion (pricing of a specific floor). It lacks details on parameter enum usage, result ranking, and what happens when nothing matches, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 schema names alone carry the parameter definitions. The description names the inputs (question and optional topic) but does not explain the enum values or constraints (min/max length), so it provides only partial compensation 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?

The description states a specific verb (answer a question) and resource (Danish wood floors and Gulvbuddy content) and says it returns the answer plus canonical URL. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like hent_guide or forklar_prisen, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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: use this to answer questions about wood floors, with a note that concrete floor pricing is out of scope. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, such as when to prefer hent_guide or forklar_prisen.

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