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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the process: AI structures the brief, emils.design receives it, and they return with suggestions or contact to verified companies. It does not state immediate response or storage, but provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences front-load the purpose, include an example, an alternative, and the valid profiles. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the full workflow, including the recipient and customer follow-up, which is good for a tool with nested objects and no output schema. It lacks explicit success/return details but is otherwise adequate given the schema's completeness.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description only repeats the valid profile enum without adding extra meaning, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 clearly states it sends a general request ('Skickar en GENERELL förfrågan'), includes an example, and distinguishes from the sibling tool avropa_tjanst for direct requests. The verb and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative: 'För att nå ETT specifikt företag direkt, använd avropa_tjanst.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative, and the general-purpose context is implied.

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