Test results

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description builds on them by explaining that an empty result means no regional results in that range, not global absence. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 sentences convey purpose, scope, default behavior, included content, and the open-world caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers result contents, defaults, and the open-world caveat. Without an output schema, a little more detail about the result grouping would help, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of a date range and empty-result semantics, but the from/to defaults are already in the schema descriptions, so the added parameter-level value is modest.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving regional lab results (prøvesvar) with requisitions, analyses, values, and reference intervals for a date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling medication, vaccination, prescription, and referral tools.

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 description gives clear usage context: a read-only regional lab result lookup over a date range, defaulting to the last 12 months. It also provides actionable guidance on interpreting an empty result and widening the range, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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