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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses wildcard support and the exact returned fields (coordinates, postal code, municipality, cadastral numbers), which is valuable behavioral context for a search operation. It does not mention rate limits or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for basic use.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, usage modes follow, and the return contents are listed last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes, wildcard behavior, and returned data. It does not describe coordinate reference systems or error handling, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between `query` and the structured fields, and by explicitly highlighting wildcard usage with an example, going slightly beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: searching official Norwegian addresses (Kartverket) and returning coordinates. The 'Norwegian' and 'official' qualifiers clearly distinguish it from generic place-name or property search tools among the 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?

Explicitly explains the two invocation modes: free-text `query` or structured fields. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like validate_address or search_place_names, but the intended usage context is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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