get_bsu_fradrag

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses 'No authentication required' and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it omits details about return format, data source, or potential annual changes. The minimal disclosure covers basic safety but not full behavioral transparency.

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, compact sentence that expands the BSU acronym and provides the key fact about authentication. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient.

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 the zero-parameter, no-output-schema nature, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool returns conceptually (deduction limits) and that no auth is needed. However, it does not specify whether the limits are current/yearly or what exact shape the result takes, which is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('BSU deduction limits'), and expands the acronym with a parenthetical explanation ('home savings scheme for young people'). It distinguishes itself from sibling deduction tools by focusing specifically on this Norwegian tax scheme.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_rentefradrag or get_reisefradrag. It only notes 'No authentication required,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage context. Thus, it lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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