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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the derived-status computation from last_done and the free/no-account access model. It omits return shape details such as grouping or ordering, but the behavioral profile is clear.

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?

Front-loads 'Lists the inspections...' and puts the differentiator (status computation) in a clear conditional clause. The first sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, but every element carries information; the two trailing sentences are one-line constraints.

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 four optional params, a nested object and no output schema, the description effectively documents the return payload (interval, legal basis, who may perform, compliance status) and the conditional behavior of last_done. Minor gaps remain around default language and how has_lift suppresses the lift obligation.

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 75% and the description adds meaning beyond it by naming the obligation keys that last_done accepts (OVK, energy declaration, lift, radon, legionella, fire safety) and tying lift inspection to building characteristics. It leaves the ventilation enum and language options to the schema, which already documents ventilation and has an obvious enum.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and a precisely scoped resource (inspections a Swedish apartment building or commercial property must or should have), then enumerates the concrete obligations covered (OVK, energy declaration, lift, radon, legionella, fire safety). An agent knows exactly what domain this covers and what each returned item contains (interval, legal basis, performer, compliance status).

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?

Gives clear usage context: supply last-done dates to obtain done/due-soon/overdue status, otherwise a plain checklist is returned. Also clears the auth barrier ('Free, no account') and sets a boundary ('General information, not legal advice'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but there are no siblings to route against.

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