vis_madplan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description contributes the return payload (varer, pris, status, sms_tekst) and the no-argument fallback behavior, which is exactly the gap left by the absent output schema. It does not say what happens when a supplied kode is unknown or invalid, but for a simple read that is a minor omission.

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, and the resource is described before the conditional fallback, so it is properly front-loaded. The second sentence is telegraphic ("Uden kode: den nyeste") and slightly clipped, but nothing is wasted.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned and what happens when no code is given. Missing only edge-case behavior for a bad kode and return ordering, which are small for a read-only tool of this complexity.

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 the meaning of "kode"; it explains the omitted case (return the newest) but never states positively that kode selects a specific saved plan or what form the code takes. It partially compensates for the coverage gap rather than fully closing it.

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 names the resource ("en gemt madplan") and enumerates the fields it carries (varer, pris, status, sms_tekst), so an agent knows this is the retrieval of a stored meal plan. The verb itself is only implied by the name ("vis"), and no sibling such as gem_madplan or fyld_kurv_fra_madplan is named to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Uden kode: den nyeste" gives one concrete usage rule: omit the code to get the most recent plan. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gem_madplan (write) or fyld_kurv_fra_madplan (downstream use), so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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