tannlege_kjederList all Norwegian dental chains (kjeder) registered on finn-tannlege.com, including the number of clinic locations per chain. Examples of chains: 'Tannhelse Øst', 'Colosseum Tannlege', 'Nordic Dental'. Example question: 'hvilke tannlegekjeder finnes i Norge?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that the output includes the number of clinic locations per chain, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 examples, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no waste.
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 no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter info but provides output context (clinic locations). Baseline 4 for zero parameters.
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?
Clearly specifies the action ('List all Norwegian dental chains'), the resource ('Norwegian dental chains registered on finn-tannlege.com'), and the additional detail ('including the number of clinic locations per chain'). Examples and an example question further clarify the scope. Distinguishes from sibling tools like tannlege_search (for dentists) and tannlege_stats.
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?
Provides examples of chains and an example question ('hvilke tannlegekjeder finnes i Norge?'), which implicitly guide when to use this tool. However, no explicit comparison with sibling tools or conditions for use versus alternatives.
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.