get_krav

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether the result is a list, how 'outstanding' is defined, if there is pagination, or any authentication/authorization needs. For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, this is a significant 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?

The description is only two sentences, with the first being directly informative. The second sentence ('Part of Fremtidens innkreving') adds marginal context but is not wasteful. It is concise and without redundancy.

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 five parameters, only one required, and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks crucial context: return value format, pagination, default filters, and its relationship to similar sibling 'get_restanse'. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% coverage with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely implies that 'identifikator' is the key, which the schema already states as 'Norwegian identity number'.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('outstanding tax claims (krav)') and specifies the target as 'a person or organisation'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_restanse', which likely covers similar debt/claim data, so it stops short of a 5.

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. It does not mention filters, limitations, or exclude scenarios. The phrase 'Part of Fremtidens innkreving' is a program label, not usage instruction.

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