get_summert_skattegrunnlag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the return consists of aggregated income, assets, and deductions, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral aspects such as authorization requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the tool's purpose and output scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, which it does by enumerating the categories. It is complete enough for a straightforward read tool, though it lacks details on output structure or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters like 'stadie' or 'rettighetspakke' beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline.

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 function: 'Get aggregated tax basis (summert skattegrunnlag) for a person.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly notes that it returns 'total income, assets, and deductions without item-level detail,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that may offer item-level data.

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 phrase 'without item-level detail' provides clear context that this tool is for aggregated summaries, implying a distinction from more granular tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a definitive when-not-to-use scenario, so it falls short of a 5.

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