get_personfradrag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral trait: 'No authentication required.' However, it does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., amount in NOK, year, object structure) or any error behavior, leaving the return format ambiguous for a 0-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Get'. Every clause earns its place: the definition clarifies the purpose, and the authentication note adds a critical behavioral detail. 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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the core domain definition and authentication requirement, which is helpful. However, it lacks any indication of the return format or whether the value is year-dependent, leaving a clear gap in what an agent should expect from the response.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema covers all parameters vacuously, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about the allowance without needing to describe parameters.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get personfradrag (personal allowance) — the standard deduction applied to all taxpayers before income tax is calculated.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the definition distinguishes it from sibling deduction tools like get_minstefradrag and get_fagforeningsfradrag.

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 provides clear context about what the deduction is, implying when it should be used (when the standard personal allowance is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as other deduction tools for specific cases.

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