norway_get_subunit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the tool's scope (specific vs. all branches), which is useful behavioral information beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), high schema coverage (100%), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose and usage without needing to explain parameters or return values.

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%, with the single parameter 'org_number' documented as 'required'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get details') and resource ('specific sub-unit (branch office) by its org number'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'norway_get_subunits' which is for listing all branches. This provides precise differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for a specific sub-unit') and when to use an alternative ('For listing all branches of a parent, use norway_get_subunits'), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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