tannlege_statsFetch aggregated statistics for the Norwegian dental market from finn-tannlege.com. Returns total clinic count, per-county breakdown (per fylke), Helfo count, chain-member count, emergency-duty (akuttvakt) count, and specialist-clinic count. Example question: 'how many dental clinics are there in Norway?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by enumerating the specific statistics returned (counts and breakdowns), which goes beyond the 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?
Description is a single sentence with a brief example, front-loading the core action and results. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.
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, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It could mention the response format, but the example and list of returned counts provide sufficient completeness.
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?
No parameters are defined in the input schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no requirement.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches aggregated statistics for the Norwegian dental market, listing specific counts (total, per-county, Helfo, chain, emergency, specialist) and providing an example question. The title reinforces the 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?
Description implies use for overall market stats and gives a concrete example question. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of sibling names (search, info, etc.) and the description itself sufficiently guide usage.
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.