get_skattekort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return variants and implies read-only behavior through 'Get', but it omits details about required permissions, error conditions, or absence of side effects. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value: the resource, the employee scope, and the expected return variations. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 get tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description satisfactorily explains the high-level return values. However, it does not specify the response shape or handle edge cases, and it does not clarify the distinction from related skattekort workflow tools, so it falls just short of 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the return values but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema offers, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('tax deduction card'), and the target ('for an employee'). It also specifies what is returned (table number, percentage rate, or frikort status), which distinguishes this direct retrieval tool from the order/status/result sibling 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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as order_skattekort or get_skattekort_resultat. The description implies a read operation for tax card data but does not mention exclusions or related workflow steps, leaving potential ambiguity for an agent.

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