Model for brugeren

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful constraint that pricing data is deliberately omitted, sparing the agent from expecting cost fields, but says nothing about lookup failures, authorization, or missing-model behavior.

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, no filler, with the returned-content summary front-loaded and the price exclusion trailing. Efficient, though the extreme brevity costs it the clarity that a verb-led sentence would have provided.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the field enumeration does double duty as an implicit return-value summary, which is genuinely helpful. However, the required modelId is unexplained and there is no indication of what happens when the model is absent, leaving the description only partially complete.

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 parameter modelId, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing about what modelId is, where it comes from, or its format, leaving the required identifier completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 enumerates the data attached to a model (name, photos, documents, protective equipment), which implies a fetch/read of a single model's record, but it never states a verb or resource explicitly. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling model-related tools such as lager_ansvarlig_modeller, so the agent must guess which one to call.

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?

"Ingen priser" is the only scoping signal and is framed as a content exclusion rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus the many sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or alternatives named.

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