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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: free with no account (no auth prerequisite) and an explicit 'general information, not legal advice' disclaimer that signals the authority of the output.

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?

Effectively one front-loaded sentence with a high-information parenthetical, followed by two short qualifiers. Every clause (intervals, legal basis, who may perform, status logic, cost/auth, disclaimer) earns its place.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing return content: interval, legal basis, performer, and computed status. That covers what an agent needs to act on results, though it does not describe response shape or ordering.

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 75% and the ventilation enum is already fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only refers generically to 'last-done dates' and does not clarify has_lift or language, so it adds little beyond structured fields.

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 (lists the inspections a Swedish apartment building or commercial property must or should have) and enumerates the concrete obligations covered (OVK, energy declaration, lift, radon, legionella, fire safety). An agent immediately knows the domain and the exact output 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?

Explains the conditional behavior: status (done/due soon/overdue) is only computed when last-done dates are supplied, which tells the agent when to pass last_done versus call bare. No alternatives or exclusions are named, but with no sibling tools there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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