get_formuesgrunnlag_eiendomsskatt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns market value and calculated tax basis, which is output-focused. It fails to explicitly indicate that it is a read-only operation or mention any access restrictions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence names the action and resource, and the second lists the key outputs. There is no unnecessary content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values. It mentions market value and calculated tax basis at a high level but does not describe their structure or any edge cases, prerequisites, or special conditions. The description is adequate for a simple getter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the role of 'rettighetspakke' or how 'inntektsaar' affects the query. 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?

The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (property value basis for property tax), and the expected output (market value and calculated tax basis). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_formuesobjekt_fast_eiendom and get_formuesskatt by focusing on the tax basis specifically.

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 usage by its title and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison to sibling tools such as get_formuesobjekt_fast_eiendom or get_skattemelding, leaving the context implicit.

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