Get street (named road)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (name, administering municipality, per-municipality road codes, postcodes) and the fact that a street can span municipalities, plus an auth note for the alternative tool. It does not address what happens when no key is supplied, which is the remaining gap.

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 purpose sentence, then return contents, then a concrete worked example, then the exclusion and sibling routing. Every sentence carries information and the example disambiguates the composite key format.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It is nearly complete for a read lookup, with the only omission being behavior when no identifying parameter is provided.

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 description coverage is only 33% and 0 parameters are required, so the description's labeling of municipality_code + road_code as a composite key and street_id as a UUID is genuinely useful. However it never states how the two lookup modes interact if both are supplied, nor what error surfaces with zero parameters.

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 (Fetch) and resource (named road / NavngivenVej) with the two accepted lookup keys (UUID or municipality_code + road_code). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (dar_search_addresses) and clarifies it does not search 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?

Explicitly lists the two use conditions (by UUID, or by municipality_code + road_code) and an exclusion clause ('Does NOT search by name') that routes the agent to dar_search_addresses, noting the API key requirement there. Nothing is left to inference.

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