Eurostat: hvilke dimensjoner har datasettet?

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies read-only behavior with 'Viser' (shows) and adds useful context with 'kodeverket er ikke til å gjette' (codes are not to be guessed). However, it does not disclose output format, error handling, or any potential side effects, leaving room for improvement.

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 tightly written sentences plus a standard source/license line. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives usage guidance, and the license is relevant metadata. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter info tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the data source/license. It does not describe the return value, but the purpose is straightforward. An output schema or explicit return-format note would make it more complete, but current detail is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter with a concrete example ('prc_hicp_midx'), giving 100% coverage. The description's mention that codes are not guessable reinforces the need for a correct dataset code but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 first sentence clearly states the function: 'Viser dimensjonene i et Eurostat-datasett med eksempelkoder' (shows dimensions in a Eurostat dataset with example codes). It differentiates from sibling eurostat_data by framing itself as a preparation step before data fetching, making its distinct role obvious.

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 says 'Kjør denne før du henter data' (Run this before you fetch data), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (especially eurostat_data) makes the recommended sequence unambiguous.

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