vis_profil

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing response shape: a `felter` field explains each field and 'alle felter gælder' tells the agent the data is authoritative. It does not describe size, freshness, or whether the profile can be empty, so it remains moderate.

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 what the resource is, then the response-convention note, then the call condition. No redundant restatement of the name and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece: that each returned field is self-explaining via `felter` and that all fields are valid. It does not say what the profile looks like if unset or how large the payload is, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing options and instead spends its space on what the response contains.

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 verb+resource ('Husstandens profil' = the household's profile) and enumerates its contents: people, weekly budget, preferences, wishes for goods and meals. An agent immediately knows this is a read of household context. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'opdater_profil', though the 'vis' vs 'opdater' naming makes the distinction obvious.

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?

'Læs den, før du laver madplan eller indkøbsliste' gives an explicit precondition for use tied to concrete downstream tasks (meal plan, shopping list). There is no when-not guidance or reference to alternatives, so it stops short of a full routing instruction, but the usage context is clear.

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