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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the response envelope ('value' array), Danish field naming with translations, and paging behavior. It does not cover rate limits or max page sizes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then operators, then concrete examples; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense in the middle with overlapping examples already present in the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the `value` envelope and the Danish field vocabulary. For a 7-parameter open-ended OData query tool this is adequate, though a note on default page size limits or unknown-entity failure behavior would complete it.

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% and each parameter already carries an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the Danish field mapping (titel=title, opdateringsdato=last-updated) which is genuinely useful for constructing filters, but no additional syntax constraints beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Query a Folketinget ... OData v3 entity collection') plus the return shape ('Returns matching rows under the `value` array'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-record siblings like get_entity_by_id and from the narrow search_cases.

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?

Gives real usage context (supported OData operators, example filters, paging via $top/$skip) but never states when to prefer this over get_entity_by_id or search_cases, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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