get_formuesobjekt_fast_eiendom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns classification and ownership, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, potential errors, or limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal behavioral context is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema details. This is an appropriately sized description.

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 description is adequate for a simple GET-like tool, but gaps remain. With no output schema, it only vaguely mentions 'classification and ownership' without detailing the response structure. It also does not explain the 'rettighetspakke' parameter, which may be domain-specific. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of usage context and output details makes it only moderately complete for an agent invoking this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (inntektsaar, rettighetspakke, norskIdentifikator) already described. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the person is identified by Norwegian identity number, but it does not elaborate on 'rettighetspakke' or parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides. The schema does most of the work, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get property assets (fast eiendom) for a person' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds detail about the return content ('classification and ownership of real properties'), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_formuesgrunnlag_eiendomsskatt that focus on property tax basis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does, without mentioning related tools, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred. The sibling list includes similar property-related tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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