sok_stedsnavn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool returns search results with specific fields but does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a search tool, more transparency about expected behavior is needed.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second summarizes the output fields. It is front-loaded with the most important information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining or elaborating on output structure without adding length.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must convey the return format. It lists the fields (skrivemåte, kommune, fylke, koordinater) but does not specify that results are an array, or provide any pagination details beyond the treffPerSide parameter. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameters (e.g., it does not explain how to use knr effectively). With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but since the description adds no value, it scores lower.

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 searches the Central Place Name Register (Sentralt Stedsnavnregister) from Kartverket and returns matches with writing, municipality, county, and coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Søk') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sok_adresse (search address) and sok_bygning (search building) by focusing on place names.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sok_adresse or sok_bygning. It only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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