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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — it is an open index of state agencies and municipalities with no commercial ranking — but says nothing about result format, coverage limits, or what happens when topic/municipality are omitted.

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 tight sentences with the return value and scope front-loaded and the differentiation note at the end. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (links) and the two axes of the index (topic, municipality). It is nearly complete; only the shape/limits of the returned link set and behavior when both optional params are omitted are left unstated.

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% and the enum plus both field descriptions are already documented in the schema, including the municipality/topic pairing hint. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (returns links) and resource (free public services in Norway), plus the scope of the index (state agencies by topic, all 357 municipalities). The closing clause 'Public services are never ranked against businesses' implicitly separates it from find_business/check_business siblings.

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 implies the domain (free public services, not businesses) but never explicitly says when to choose this over find_business or check_business. The instruction to pair municipality with the municipality topic lives in the schema, not the description, so no when-to-use guidance is added here.

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