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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that the AI structures the brief, that the request is received by emils.design, that the customer gets a confirmation email, and that the request is only forwarded after the email is verified. This is rich, non-obvious behavior for an agent to know.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and stays organized across four sentences. It earns its length, though the full list of valid profil values duplicates the schema enum, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise efficient definition.

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 tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is unusually complete. It covers the action, the alternative tool, the recipient, the email-confirmation side effect, and the accepted industries. Nothing critical to selecting or invoking the tool correctly seems missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and enums. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stressing that kontakt.epost must be a real verified address and explaining the confirmation flow. It also restates the valid profil enum, which is redundant but not harmful.

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 the tool sends a general request-for-quote, gives a concrete example, and names the receiving party (emils.design/Saightly). It explicitly contrasts itself with avropa_tjanst, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings.

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 description says exactly when to use this tool (general requests, e.g. 'bygga ut altan i Skara') and when not to (to reach one specific company, use avropa_tjanst). It also adds operational guidance: require a real customer email, never invent one, and tell the customer to check their inbox.

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