search_address

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: it handles partial input and typos, and returns coordinates in EPSG:4258 plus cadastral IDs. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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 the core purpose and return payload, then usage and alternatives, then an example. Dense but each sentence carries routing or semantic value; only the return-detail sentence partly overlaps the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, yet the tool's routing, typo tolerance, and example are all covered. Minor gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which leaves result-count behavior unstated.

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 67%: query and kommunenummer are documented, limit is not. The description adds a concrete example query value, which helps with format, but it never explains the limit or municipality filter parameters beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (official Norwegian addresses), and explicitly says it also resolves address to property ID via cadastral identifiers. It distinguishes itself from siblings get_property and get_place by name.

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 explicit when-to-use ('where is <address>', first step before get_property) and when-not (place names that are not street addresses → use get_place). The alternative routing is unambiguous.

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