Forbrugsvarer

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 fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is a catalogue view and that sold-out items are orderable elsewhere, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or permissions; modest added value over 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 terse fragments that are entirely front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than padded, but every word carries 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 no output schema, the field list (navn, varenr, gruppe, beholdning, salgspris) usefully conveys what a call returns, and the cross-reference to lager_bestil closes the ordering loop. Remaining gaps are minor for a simple read-only catalogue tool.

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 100% – both soeg (filter on name/item no.) and lagerId (omit when you only have one warehouse, see lager_me) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

Identifies the resource ("Kataloget") and enumerates the fields it returns (navn, varenr, gruppe, beholdning, salgspris), so an agent knows this is a consumables catalogue lookup. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the similarly named sibling lager_ansvarlig_forbrugsvarer.

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 sentence "Udsolgt kan bestilles med lager_bestil" routes one sub-case (ordering sold-out items) to a named sibling, which is genuine routing guidance. But it gives no general when-to-use context or distinction from lager_forbrug, lager_opslag, or lager_ansvarlig_forbrugsvarer, so usage is only partially implied.

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