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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only returns open address-linked identifiers, not ownership data, and identifies the data source. It does not cover edge cases such as supplying both address and coordinate or providing neither, but the scope limitation is clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences; the main purpose is front-loaded, the input acceptance is stated in one sentence, and the limitation is at the end. No filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned identifiers and the data source. For a tool with four optional parameters and a Norwegian cadastral domain, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could state behavior when no lookup input is supplied.

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%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds the meaningful 'or' relationship between free-text address and coordinate lookup, which is not encoded in the schema, but it does not elaborate on max_results 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 names a specific resource ('cadastral identifiers for a property'), a concrete data source (Kartverket open address register), and lists the exact returned fields (municipality number, gnr, bnr, festenummer). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the broader authenticated Matrikkel API and from sibling address/search tools by its focus on matrikkel identifiers.

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 states when to use it: looking up property identifiers from a free-text address or coordinate, and explicitly flags that full ownership data is outside this tool's scope and requires the authenticated Matrikkel API. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools like search_address or lookup_admin_unit, but the input and exclusion guidance gives clear enough context.

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