get_tredjepartsopplysninger_oppgavetyper

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool is a read-only lookup ('Get the list'), but it does not describe the exact format of the returned list, potential error scenarios, or any required authentication. The description adds useful context about 'valid' types but is minimal for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of stating the return value ('list of valid oppgavetyper') and the domain ('third-party data reporting'). However, it omits details such as whether the list is sorted, whether it includes deprecated types, or any error conditions, which could be important for an agent invoking the tool. Still, for a simple lookup, the information is largely 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 has zero parameters, resulting in a baseline of 4. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining that 'oppgavetyper' are report types used in third-party data reporting, which is helpful for understanding the purpose even though there are no parameters to document.

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 returns a list of valid oppgavetyper (report types) specifically for third-party data reporting. The verb 'Get' and the resource identification distinguish it from sibling tools like get_skattesatser or get_mva_koder, which address different data categories.

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 context is clear: this tool is used to fetch valid oppgavetyper for third-party data reporting, which is implied to be a prerequisite for submitting such data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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