Artsdatabanken: slå opp art

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the data source and license (CC BY 4.0), but it does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, case sensitivity, partial matching behavior, response limits, or error handling. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that should explain how the search behaves.

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: the first delivers the core purpose and result fields, the second adds source and license. Every sentence adds value, and it is perfectly front-loaded with the action. No fluff.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description lists the return fields (taxon-id, names, group), which helps set expectations. However, it omits behavior for the 'antall' parameter and what happens when no results are found. Since the tool is straightforward, this is adequate but slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'sok' has a description). The description adds some context for 'sok' by explaining it accepts Norwegian or scientific names, but it says nothing about 'antall' (the count parameter). With partial coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter, which it fails to do.

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 searches species names (Norwegian or scientific) and returns specific fields: taxon-id, valid scientific name, Norwegian name, and species group. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from all sibling tools (transport, statistics, weather, etc.).

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 use for looking up species data ('Søker i artsnavn...'), which gives clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling list makes it obvious this is the only species-lookup tool. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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