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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important operational context beyond them: long answers are truncated to the newest rows, and results can be scoped by period and column filters.

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 purpose and truncation behavior are front-loaded and useful, but the description repeats the same core explanation in Norwegian and English and then includes a long catalog. The catalog earns its place for dataset selection, while the bilingual duplication makes the definition less concise than it could be.

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 tool with 18 datasets, nested filter parameters, and output schema support, the description covers the essential selection context and truncation behavior. It is nearly complete, though it omits explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.

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, but the description adds meaningful dataset semantics by listing each dataset slug with its subject matter and date range. It does not add much detail for from, to, filter, or limit beyond the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets rows from one of the open tables under pristavla.no/data. It also names the dataset catalog and optional period/filter scoping, so an agent can tell this is a data-retrieval tool rather than page navigation or search.

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 explains that rows can optionally be limited to a period and filtered on column values, which implies when to use it. However, it does not compare usage against sibling tools such as get_page, list_pages, or search, and it gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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