norway_search_subunits

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 valuable context about the search scope (by name, with municipality filtering) and clarifies the prerequisite condition (not having parent org number), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameters, the second provides usage guidelines and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), the presence of comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, key parameters, and sibling differentiation, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 only 25% (only the 'query' parameter has a description), but the description compensates by explaining that 'query' is for searching by name and mentions the 'municipality' parameter for filtering. However, it doesn't address 'page' and 'size' parameters, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Search Norwegian branch offices by name') and resource ('branch offices'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'norway_get_subunits' by specifying different use cases. This provides excellent differentiation and clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('find branches named X and you don't have the parent org number') and when to use an alternative ('For listing all branches of a known parent, use norway_get_subunits'). It also mentions the municipality filter capability, giving clear context for application.

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