Lageransvarlig: enheder

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what each mode returns: filtered entities in list mode versus photos, history, rental periods and sales in tag mode. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but otherwise goes 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?

Two tightly parallel clauses front-load the mode switch and waste no words; the status list is the only length and it carries genuine information.

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 5 params, no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical mode distinction, the return payload per mode, and the status vocabulary. The remaining gap is the meaning/optionality of lagerId, modelId and soeg for filtering.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted status values (paa_lager, ude, karantaene, til_klargoering, til_service, savnet, kasseret, solgt) that are absent as an enum in the schema, and explains the semantic difference of tag. It leaves soeg, modelId and lagerId's usage unexplained, preventing a 5.

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 a specific resource (enheder) and clearly splits behavior into two modes: a filtered list when no tag is given, and a single detailed unit when tag is given. It distinguishes itself from generic list siblings via the status/model/search filter description, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with tools like lager_opslag or lager_model.

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?

The 'Uden tag' / 'Med tag' framing implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick based on whether it holds a tag, which is useful routing guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to a sibling alternative for the list case.

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