get_property

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by describing what is returned (representation point lat/lon, optional boundary polygon GeoJSON) and by flagging the licensing constraint on owner/building/valuation data with instructions to acknowledge the gap rather than guess. This is high-value behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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-loads the action and resource, then adds the input convention, the return behavior, the critical data-availability caveat, and an example — every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema already covers return structure, the description supplies the missing pieces: identification convention, expected output shape, and the important scope limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is absent.

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 field semantics are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete worked example (kommunenummer='0301', gardsnummer=207, bruksnummer=100) and ties the parameters to the matrikkel number concept, adding real value over the schema's terse labels.

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 ('Locate') and a precise resource ('Norwegian cadastral property (matrikkelenhet)') with the exact identifier triplet required. It also disambiguates from the sibling search_address by naming it as the upstream source of the matrikkel number.

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?

Explains the context for use ('e.g. from a search_address result') and explicitly warns what cannot be retrieved (owners, buildings, valuations), routing the agent away from wrong expectations. It does not, however, name a competing sibling or state when NOT to call it.

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