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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is a static, self-contained catalogue of offerings rather than live account data, but says nothing about format, freshness, or the limits of what is covered (e.g. no customer-specific pricing).

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 front-loaded sentence names the resource and URL, then uses semicolon-separated groups to enumerate content areas. There is no filler, though the dense enumeration makes it read as a list rather than a guide.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the definition does not need to explain return values or permissions. The remaining gap is meaningful for the sibling set: overlapping tools (price_modules, request_demo, read_public_page) are not addressed, so the agent may pick the wrong entry point.

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?

There is a single optional locale parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description never mentions language selection, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 resource (GLØDI's business offering at glodi.no/bedrift) and enumerates what it covers: modules, features, monthly prices, module combinations, plans, subscription terms, SMS usage prices, and applying/demo. An agent knows it returns business-plan information rather than performing any action. It falls short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that cover overlapping content.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the content listing (use this when a business user asks about offerings, pricing, or subscription terms), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like price_modules, request_demo, and read_public_page overlap with the pricing, demo, and page content mentioned here, and the description never routes the agent between them.

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