Lageransvarlig: modeller

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the result in each mode (counts and prices vs. photos, documents, price versions and units), which is behaviour an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the no-modelId case first and the modelId case second. Every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 and no required parameters, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well for both modes. The gaps are the unexplained inklInaktive flag and the absence of any pagination or volume caveat for the all-models listing.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description has to compensate. It does explain the central modelId parameter and its effect on the response, which is the most valuable addition, but inklInaktive is left totally undocumented in both schema and description, and the lagerId scoping note exists only in the schema.

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 resource (modeller) and clearly splits the behaviour into two modes based on whether modelId is supplied, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back in each case. It never names or contrasts itself with the sibling lager_model, so differentiation from nearby tools is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied structurally: omit modelId for the list view, supply it for the detailed single-model view. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative lager_model/lager_me tools, and no note on when the lagerId scope matters.

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