Datakatalogen: hent endepunkt og lisens for en oppføring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('kun oppslag') and provides source attribution (data.norge.no) and license (NLOD 2.0). This goes beyond a minimal description, though it doesn't detail error handling or response structure. The read-only nature is valuable behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds source and read-only context. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. It earns its place in two sentences.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains. It mentions endpoint URL and license, but 'Full metadata' is vague. For a simple tool with two parameters, this may be adequate, but it leaves gaps around error cases and the full return structure. The source and read-only context help, but more detail would improve completeness.

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 description does not explain the input parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (id is described, katalog is not). The description mentions 'katalogoppføring' but does not clarify the 'katalog' enum or how to select the right catalog type. The id parameter is documented in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 function: 'Full metadata for én katalogoppføring' (full metadata for one catalog entry), with specific mention of the endpoint URL and license. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'kun oppslag, ikke datauttrekk' (lookup only, not data extraction), and the title explicitly says 'hent endepunkt og lisens' (get endpoint and license).

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 clear usage context: it is a lookup tool, not for data extraction ('kun oppslag, ikke datauttrekk'). It also identifies the source (Felles datakatalog). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the parameter description 'Id fra fdk_sok' implies integration with the search tool. This gives sufficient guidance for when to use this tool.

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