vent_paa_svar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the key behavior an agent needs: each call blocks for at most ~55 seconds, an empty result is signalled as {"ingen_svar_endnu": true}, and the caller is expected to poll by calling again. It also explains how to interpret replies from the 'handle-bot' in the ordering flow. This is substantive behavioral context that the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking-wait behavior, then the return shape, then the polling instruction. Nothing is padded. The final sentence about the handle-bot is slightly compressed and cryptic, but it still earns its place by explaining result interpretation.

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 supplies the return shape and the empty-result sentinel, and it explains the polling loop an agent must implement. For a one-parameter, read-only tool this is close to complete; the only real gap is the undocumented wait-duration parameter.

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 schema documents zero of the one parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate and largely does not: it never mentions 'sekunder', its default of 50, or that the parameter controls how long the call waits. The stated 'højst 55 sekunder pr. kald' only indirectly hints at the parameter's valid domain and never ties it to the argument.

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: wait for a reply from the household on Telegram, with a per-call time limit. It implicitly separates itself from the message-listing siblings (vis_beskeder, send_besked) by framing this as a blocking wait rather than a read or send. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives concrete usage context: call it again while waiting, and it is the thing to call after a 'bestil' to learn whether the basket was filled. That is a clear when-to-use signal. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., use vis_beskeder to just read existing messages), which keeps it below a 5.

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