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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it names the returned fields (record count, freshness, errors) and a concrete threshold – a WARNING when delta-sync exceeds 24 hours – which is real context an agent can act on.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the warning condition. Every clause earns its 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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so adequately (counts, freshness, errors, warning flag). It is complete enough for a read-only status check, though it could note expected data sources or refresh cadence.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise to clarify, and the description correctly adds no misleading parameter detail.

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 ("Viser") and resource (status for the latest CVR sync), enumerating exactly what it reports: record count, freshness, and errors. This is clearly distinguishable from the data-lookup siblings (cvr_get_company, cvr_financial_analysis, etc.) since it is a system/health meta-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 only implied – an agent can infer it is for checking sync health, but the description never says when to call it or what to do with the warning. No alternatives or exclusions are named, and no prerequisites are given.

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