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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context the annotations do not: the policies are specifically for orders from helsama.se. It says nothing about freshness of the policies or whether shipping data is destination-specific.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint (helsama.se orders) is placed at the end after the content list. It reads as a noun-phrase content inventory rather than a front-loaded action statement, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries its share: it enumerates the policy categories an agent can expect back. Only the return shape (single object vs. sections) and currency/locale specifics are left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a single fixed-scope lookup with no filtering options, and nothing in the schema needs further explanation.

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 names the concrete content set – shipping countries/prices, delivery times, returns, and customer-service contact – scoped to helsama.se orders, which distinguishes it from the article/product/facts/faq siblings. It implies retrieval rather than stating a verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool answers shipping, delivery, returns, and contact questions. No explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no sibling alternatives are named (e.g. versus get_faq, which could plausibly cover similar questions).

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