get_reisefradrag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'No authentication required.' However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any other side effects. As a read-only rules lookup, the omission is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: the first states the purpose with the deduction concept, the second notes authentication. Every sentence earns its place, no filler.

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, parameterless rules-lookup tool, the description covers the essential purpose and a key access condition. It could be slightly more complete by indicating the format of the rules (e.g., list, text) or year applicability, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (none needed), but it confirms the tool is a simple lookup. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties.

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 rules for commuter/travel deduction (reisefradrag / pendlerfradrag)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource with both English and Norwegian terms, and adds scope ('deduction for work travel above the minimum threshold'), distinguishing it from sibling deduction tools.

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 only states 'No authentication required,' which is not a usage guideline. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives like get_hjemmekontor_fradrag or get_bilgodtgjorelse.

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