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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core behavior: searching the catalog and returning the cheapest price, number of stores, and a product page link. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty results, sorting defaults beyond what the schema provides, or response structure.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and output, followed by usage context and a return-value note. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

For a simple search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to search, what output to expect, and the link returned. It is slightly sparse on no-result behavior and response shape, but sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all parameters including examples and defaults. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Sök i Comperas produktkatalog') and the resource, and specifies the output ('billigaste pris + antal butiker per produkt'). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the scope of physical products and the output detail make the purpose clear.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Använd för fysiska produkter (TV, mobil, hörlurar, dator, vitvaror m.m.)'. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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