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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds that results carry ids and Danish names, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose format, ordering, or size of the returned list.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Danish sentence is a verbatim translation of the same content, adding bulk without new information, and 'Input: spor' is a fragment. The duplicated bilingual content costs it conciseness.

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 simple read-only enum lookup with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is adequate to call the tool. However, it omits what 'spor' signifies and which enum value applies to which scenario, and the second half is redundant translation rather than added substance.

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 description must carry the parameter burden, yet 'Input: spor' merely restates the parameter name. It never explains what 'spor' means or how the caller should choose between the enum values nyt_gulv and slibning.

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 ('List') and resource ('valid choices, with ids and Danish names') and scopes it to the estimate and booking tools. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like daekning or ydelser.

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?

The mention that the choices are 'for the estimate and booking tools' implies a usage context (fetch valid values before estimating/booking) and 'Input: spor' names the required input, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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