Lageransvarlig: bestillinger

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content semantics (grouping by supplier, two inclusion categories, status) but says nothing about ordering, size, or how results are shaped, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, but the nested parenthesis ('skal bestilles: brugernes bestillinger og varer under minimum') makes the scope hard to parse on first read. Reasonably compact but not cleanly front-loaded.

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 should carry the return-value burden; it partially does by naming the two supplier-grouped categories and the status list, but omits ordering, volume, or pagination behavior and never disambiguates from sibling order-listing tools.

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?

There is a single optional lagerId parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already explains when to omit it. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys that this returns an order list grouped per supplier (user orders plus items below minimum stock) and all orders with status, which is a coherent purpose. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like lager_bestillinger or lager_ansvarlig_send_bestillingsliste.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many order-related siblings (lager_bestillinger, lager_bestil, lager_bestilling_hent). The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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