get_restanse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the returned data (unpaid claims held by Skatteetaten) and implicitly indicates a read operation via 'Get'. However, it lacks explicit statements about safety, authorization requirements, or any side effects. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second clarifies the result. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is a simple getter with no output schema, so the description must provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains what is returned but lacks important context about the 'rettighetspakke' parameter, which is required and likely related to access rights. The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for fully informed usage, especially regarding required authorization context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with minimal meanings ('Rights package' and 'Norwegian national identity number'). The tool description does not add any extra explanation of parameter usage, particularly the 'rettighetspakke' parameter, which is not obvious from its name. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value is provided by the description.

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 tool as retrieving outstanding tax debts (restanse) for a person, using a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('outstanding tax debts'). It further clarifies the content by stating it returns unpaid claims held by Skatteetaten, which distinguishes it from other tax-related getters like get_krav or get_betalinger.

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 implies usage for retrieving a person's outstanding tax debts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like get_krav (claims) and get_betalinger (payments) exist, and no differentiation or selection guidance is given. This is only implicit usage guidance.

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