get_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields (name, navneobjekttype, municipality, coordinates) and the wildcard-capable query surface. It stops short of noting pagination or result-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing guidance, then examples — all three sentences earn their place. The two examples are slightly redundant with each other, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, yet the description still names the key returned fields, and it covers scope, routing to the alternative, and input examples. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 50%: query is documented in the schema ('Place name, wildcard * allowed') and the description's examples reinforce it. The limit parameter has no description anywhere beyond its default/min/max bounds, and the description does not compensate for that gap, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search official Norwegian place names') plus the covered entity types (mountains, lakes, valleys, farms, islands, neighborhoods). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_address tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('target is not a street address') and names the alternative for the complementary case ('for street addresses use search_address'). The two example queries also anchor expected input style.

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