soeg_varer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (pris, enhedspris, tilbud, lager) and the single-store restriction, but says nothing about result limits, empty-result behavior, or failures for unsupported store values.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the action and scope come first, the returned fields second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, where, and what comes back. The remaining gap is result sizing and the meaning of 'antal', which matters given a default of 10 results.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that butik takes one of two values (nemlig/bilka), which the schema does not express as an enum, but the required 'tekst' parameter and especially 'antal' (default 10, presumably result count) are left completely undefined.

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?

"Søg efter varer i én butik" gives a specific verb (søg) and resource (varer) plus a scope constraint limited to a single store, and the parenthetical enumerates the two supported stores. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ugens_tilbud and soeg_opskrifter, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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: the word "Søg" signals a query-style tool and "i én butik" hints that cross-store comparison belongs elsewhere (sammenlign_liste). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of what to do if the product is absent.

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