Mine bestillinger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact the annotations lack: the result set is scoped to three order states plus a 30-day window for picked-up orders. It says nothing about ordering, volume or pagination.

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 only a fragment, not a sentence, but it is front-loaded and free of padding. Brevity here is achieved by omission rather than by tight writing, which limits the 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 no-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage the bar is modest, but the description still omits what is returned (order object fields, counts, sorting), what the '30 dage' window applies to precisely, and whether results are grouped by the three states. Without an output schema, an agent cannot know the response shape.

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, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 a verb or resource; it only enumerates the statuses the results cover ('Klar til afhentning, på vej, hentet'). The agent must rely on the name and title ('Mine bestillinger') to infer that this lists the caller's own orders, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as lager_ansvarlig_bestillinger or lager_bestil.

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 and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like lager_bestilling_hent, lager_bestilling_fortryd and lager_ansvarlig_bestillinger in the namespace, an agent gets no help deciding when this read-only listing is the right pick.

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