sok_eiendom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns matrikkelnummer, lokalid, and representasjonspunkt but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, destructive potential (unlikely but not stated), error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for return values. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lists three return fields but omits details on structure (e.g., data types, nested fields) and does not mention pagination (treffPerSide) or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the tool description adds value by grouping parameters into logical modes (point search vs. cadastral number search), which helps the agent understand how to combine parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up cadastral property either by geographic point (lat/lon) or by cadastral number (knr/gnr/bnr). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sok_adresse (address) and sok_bygning (building) by specifying the type of entity (matrikkeleiendom).

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 the two search modes (point vs. cadastral number) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comparisons to alternatives from the sibling list, such as for when to use sok_adresse instead.

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