submit_tredjepartsopplysninger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Submit' which implies a write operation, but it does not explain what happens after submission, whether it is synchronous, if there are authorization requirements, or how errors are surfaced. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, 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's complexity—a single object parameter with nested structure, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the expected response, how to check submission status (despite the sibling status tool), and any prerequisites or side effects, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema describes 'data' as a 'Tredjepartsopplysninger payload' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the data contains 'taxpayer data', which gives some semantic context beyond the schema, but it does not explain the structure or format of the payload, nor does it compensate for the nested object complexity.

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 (Submit), the resource (third-party information/tredjepartsopplysninger), and the destination (Skatteetaten). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by using the verb 'submit' rather than 'get', and the mention of banks, insurance companies, and brokers clarifies the domain.

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 provides context on who should use this tool (banks, insurance companies, brokers) and for what purpose (reporting taxpayer data). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like get_tredjepartsopplysninger_status, leaving some 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.