get_person_folkeregisteret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return contents but does not address read-only status, authentication needs, potential errors (e.g., not found), or data freshness. The word 'Look up' implies a safe read operation, but the description lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and list of return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no waste or 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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of return values and purpose. However, 'and more' is vague, and it does not mention that using 'part' limits the response, though that is in the schema. Overall, it is adequate but could be more specific.

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% – both parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the 'part' array's purpose is explained in the schema). This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('person in the Norwegian Population Register'), and lists the types of data returned. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like search_personer_folkeregisteret by using 'look up' rather than 'search', but does not explicitly mention the need for a national identity number or contrast with alternatives.

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 instead of alternatives such as search_personer_folkeregisteret. The required parameter implies use for direct lookup by ID, but the description does not explicitly state this or any exclusion criteria.

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