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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so safety is covered and the description correctly spends its words on content instead: it discloses that the response is an index of public pages with counts and slug-bearing taxonomies. It omits any note on response size or whether every section is always present, which keeps it from 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the payload inventory, with the secondary sections (contact facts, glodi.no plans) trailing correctly. It is efficient, though the stacked parentheticals and the fragment 'The map of everything public here' cost some readability.

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 no-required-parameter browse tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers the substantive question of what content the browse surfaces. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint about when to prefer it over read_public_page would close the loop.

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?

Only one optional parameter (locale) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it, including the enum. The description does not reference locale or the answer language at all, so it adds nothing beyond structured data — the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: a site map of public list pages with counts, plus treatment categories, body areas and skin concerns with slugs, contact facts, and GLØDI clinic plans. That is a specific resource with enumerated contents, though no verb is used and the siblings (read_public_page, search_treatments, get_treatment) are never named for contrast.

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 phrase 'for vague needs ("pigmentering", "acne")' gives one concrete when-to-use signal, implying a discovery entry point before narrower lookups. However no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is stated, so the agent must infer that find_clinics / search_treatments are for already-known targets.

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