ugeplan_forloeb

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

Annotations only supply generic hints (not read-only, open-world, non-destructive); the description adds genuine behavior: this starts a multi-turn guided flow, enumerates its stages, and reveals a side effect — it dispatches the first question to the household on Telegram when configured. That side effect sits in mild tension with the idempotentHint=true annotation, since repeated calls would re-send a message, but the description implies stateful progression rather than an outright contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the imperative routing instruction before any detail, which is exactly the right order, and the step enumeration is informative rather than padding. Phrasing is compact but slightly dense — the Telegram clause interrupts the flow description, costing a little scannability.

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 and no output schema, the description carries most of the burden and does cover trigger, sequencing, side effects, and the stages the agent will be walked through. It stops short of explaining how the flow ends or which sibling tools (cart, save plan) take over at each stage, which would fully close the loop for an agent orchestrating the conversation.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that all specificity comes from the user's request and the ongoing flow rather than from arguments.

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 trigger and resource — the user asking for a meal plan or the week's grocery shopping — and describes the tool's role as a step-by-step flow driver (fridge, menu with price estimate, cheapest-store price, 'order'). Crucially it positions itself against siblings by declaring it must be called FIRST, which an agent can act on without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition plus a concrete example utterance ('lav madplan') and a priority rule ('KALD DENNE FØRST') that disambiguates sequencing versus the many plan/cart siblings. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor which sibling handles the steps after the flow starts, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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