Afhent bestilling

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the withdrawal is charged to a case while stock is left untouched, which an agent would otherwise assume wrongly for a warehouse-order pickup. It still omits what order state changes and whether the call is repeatable (idempotentHint=false is not explained).

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.

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 mutating tool with a required identifier, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety flags, the description leaves the operation's purpose, the meaning of the ID, the resulting state change, and repeat-call behavior undocumented. What is present (case-charging vs. stock) is useful but far from sufficient.

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% for the single required parameter bestillingId, and the description never identifies or defines it. It refers obliquely to 'sagen' (the case) and 'beholdningen' (stock), which are not parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 never states what the tool does; it only describes a side effect ('the withdrawal is charged to the case; stock is not touched'). The tool's actual purpose must be inferred from the name/title ('hent'/'Afhent bestilling'), making this close to a restatement of the name. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like lager_bestillinger, lager_bestil or lager_aflever.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many bestilling/lager siblings. The agent is left to guess the invocation context entirely.

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