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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation (hämtar detaljer) but provides no additional details such as whether it is read-only, permissions needed, or what constitutes 'detaljer'. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key context. Every word is necessary; no wasted space.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter source. However, it lacks details on return values or any limitations, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It is minimally 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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds value by stating that the slug comes from sok_tjanster, giving the agent a concrete source for the parameter beyond the schema's example. This contextual guidance improves semantics.

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 clearly states the action (hämtar detaljer), the resource (tjänst), and the key (slug). It explicitly references the sibling tool sok_tjanster as the source of the slug, distinguishing it from other tools that operate on services differently (e.g., searching, ordering).

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 tells the agent to use the slug from sok_tjanster, implying the tool should be called after a search. It provides clear context for when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling differentiation.

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