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 real value beyond that by clarifying that nothing is written server-side, that the customer completes address/contact/time themselves, and that no other fields are preselected. It does not describe the produced link's lifetime or format.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the description is written twice, once in English and once in Danish, so the same content consumes double the space and only the first sentence is non-redundant for an English-reading agent.

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 22-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should carry far more weight. It does state the effective return value (a configurator link) but explains none of the inputs, leaving an agent unable to know what most parameters mean or which combinations are valid.

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?

There are 22 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no per-parameter explanation in the description. It only implies that the inputs are the customer's answers used for prefill; none of the fields (m2, spor, slid, postnummer, etc.) or their enums are explained, so an agent gets almost no semantic help for this large schema.

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 precise verb and mechanism: it builds a link that opens the Gulvbuddy configurator with the customer's existing answers prefilled. It also corrects the misleading tool name by asserting it never creates a henvendelse, booking, or sag, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from any true booking-creation 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?

It gives negative guidance (never creates a case; the customer supplies address, contact details, and time themselves) and implies the handoff scenario, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like estimer_slibning, fork lar_prisen, or kontakt. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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