norway_list_municipalities

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, cacheable operations. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses caching behavior ('Cached 24h'), which isn't covered by annotations. This enhances transparency about performance and data freshness, though it could mention more about rate limits or error handling.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause, adds behavioral context (caching), and provides a practical example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema likely detailing the codes), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its caching behavior, and includes an example, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly without needing to delve into output details.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and usage. It adds semantic value by explaining what the tool returns (municipality codes) and providing an example, which compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 purpose: 'Get Norwegian municipality codes for filtering searches.' It specifies the resource (Norwegian municipality codes) and the intended use (filtering searches). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'norway_list_org_forms' or 'norway_search_companies', which might also involve Norwegian data filtering.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'for filtering searches' and provides an example ('Oslo = 0301'), suggesting it's used to map municipality names to codes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'norway_search_companies' or 'norway_get_company', which might involve similar filtering but for different data types.

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