sok_underenheter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention pagination behavior, matching semantics, return structure, or any other operational details. The schema documents pagination parameters, but the tool description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic search function.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarification is non-redundant and helpful.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the schema fully documents each parameter. However, the description omits behavioral details and return-value expectations, making it adequate but not rich. Given that this is a straightforward search operation, it is minimally viable but leaves some gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., 'overordnetEnhet' explains its purpose and the parenthetical 'finn alle avdelinger til et foretak' adds value). The tool description itself does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Søk' - search) and the resource ('underenheter' - sub-units) within the Enhetsregisteret, with parenthetical examples ('avdelinger, filialer') that clarify the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hent_underenhet' (fetch a single sub-unit) and 'sok_foretak' (search main units).

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 implies the tool is for searching sub-units, which suggests the use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'hent_underenhet' or provide any exclusions. The usage is inferable from the name and verb, but no direct guidance is given.

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