hent_opskrift_fra_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds the domain allowlist plus the fact that the link must be obtained from a web search, which explains the open-world dependency. It omits failure behavior (unsupported site, unreachable page, scraping limits), so it adds solid but not complete behavioral context.

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?

Five short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is fetched, from where, what comes back, how to obtain the input, and the recommended follow-up. The site enumeration is long but necessary, and no sentence is redundant.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields (name, servings, time, ingredients with quantities), and it covers the input's provenance requirement. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior such as unsupported or unreachable links.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'link' parameter, so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: the link must be found via web search and must point at one of the enumerated recipe sites. That is a real constraint beyond a bare string type; it just doesn't specify URL format or partial/host variations.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Hent en opskrift fra et link') and narrows scope by enumerating the six supported recipe sites, which effectively separates it from site-agnostic siblings like soeg_opskrifter or hent_opskrift. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, so differentiation is achieved by scope rather than explicit 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?

It tells the agent the prerequisite workflow ('Find linket med websøgning på de sider'), which is real when-to-use guidance, and routes to a follow-up tool ('Gem retter, de kan lide, med gem_opskrift'). It does not state when not to use this tool or what to do when the link points to an unsupported site, keeping it from a 5.

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