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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses useful search behaviors: wildcard support, spelling-error correction, and the return fields (feature type, municipality, county, coordinates). It is transparent for a read-only-style search tool, though it does not mention rate limits or error behavior.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return-value detail and search behaviors that are not obvious from the schema. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is searched, what is returned, and key query behaviors. It could be slightly richer by clarifying coordinate format or pagination behavior, but those are minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds behavioral meaning for 'query' (wildcard and spelling correction), but it does not need to add more for 'max_results' because that is fully covered in 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('official Norwegian place names (Kartverket Sentralt stedsnavnregister)'). It also lists what is returned, which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like search_address and lookup_admin_unit.

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 this is the right tool when searching by place name rather than by address, proximity, or administrative unit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as find_place_names_near or search_address.

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