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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds valuable context: data provenance (Kartverket, Norwegian Mapping Authority), the NLOD 2.0 open licence, and that no authentication is required. This goes beyond what annotations provide for safety/scope.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return fields, then a pointer to get_place and data/licence information. It is efficient and no filler, though the licence/auth sentence could be considered slightly tangential for tool selection, it is brief and useful.

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 the rich output schema and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fills the remaining gaps: search method, filters, result content, data source, licence, auth requirement, and a pointer to the detail tool. An agent has everything needed to call and use this tool correctly.

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 all five parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description only restates 'by text' and 'optionally filtered by county or municipality,' which is a high-level repeat of schema content. It does not add new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies a specific action ('Search'), a clear resource ('official Norwegian place name register (Kartverket Stedsnavn)'), and the method ('by text, optionally filtered by county or municipality'). It also differentiates from sibling get_place by stating it returns summary data and directing to the full-detail tool.

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 explicitly names a sibling alternative: 'Call norway-kartverket-stedsnavn.get_place for full detail on a specific result,' providing a clear follow-up use case. It implies text-based search vs. point-based search (search_by_point) but does not explicitly mention or exclude that sibling, so it stops short of a full when/when-not set.

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