tannlege_akuttFind Norwegian dental clinics that offer emergency-duty (akuttvakt) — i.e. treatment outside normal working hours. Optionally filter by county (fylke). Also returns advice about the municipal dental emergency service (kommunal tannlegevakt). Example: 'finn akutt tannlege i Oslo'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fylke | No | Limit to clinics in this county. Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns advice about municipal dental emergency service, which is extra behavioral context not in annotations.
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 plus an example, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes; no redundancy.
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 a simple schema with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers tool behavior, input, and return value (clinics and advice).
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%, but the description reinforces that the county filter is optional and provides an example, adding practical usage guidance beyond the schema.
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 tool finds emergency-duty dental clinics in Norway, distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'akuttvakt' and mentions optional county filter. The example further clarifies its purpose.
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 usage through examples and context but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to avoid. However, the purpose is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dental clinic directory: emergency duty, full profile, chains, search, and statistics. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'tannlege_' followed by a Norwegian noun (akutt, info, kjeder, search, stats), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
Five tools cover the essential operations for a dental clinic directory: search, details, emergency info, chain listing, and statistics. This is well-scoped and neither too few nor too many.
The toolset covers query, detail, emergency, chains, and stats comprehensively. The only minor gap is a dedicated 'list all clinics' tool, but the search tool with empty query likely serves that purpose.