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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure beyond them: rows whose source does not allow reuse are omitted and named in notes, which tells the agent the result set may be incomplete and why.

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 content is dense and front-loaded, leading with what is returned. However, the entire description is duplicated in Norwegian and English, doubling the length so that every sentence is paid for twice rather than earning its place once.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: input format is exemplified and the reuse-omission rule is explained. Return-value details are somewhat redundant given the output schema, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, and the description goes beyond it with multiple worked slug examples (including nested paths like 'strom/ostlandet') and the meaning of the empty string as the front page.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get one page's numbers exactly as the page shows them') with an enumeration of what is returned: headline number, summary, dates, main table with source URL and check date, licence and citation. It implicitly separates itself from list_pages and search by scoping to a single page, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: five concrete slug examples and the note that a full pristavla.no URL also works tell the agent how to call it, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_series, list_pages or search.

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