Datakatalogen: finn et API å bygge mot (henter IKKE data)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it explicitly states return type (metadata), what it does NOT return (data), a behavioral nuance (94% of links point to web pages), source, and license. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and concise: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds a behavioral note, usage guidance, and source/license. Every sentence adds value; 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 relatively simple search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return type, usage context, source, and license. It could provide more detail on output structure or parameter specifics, but it is largely complete for an agent to decide correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain the parameters (sok, antall, katalog). It mentions the return metadata fields (name, publisher, endpoint) but not how to use the search query or count. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema's type/enum definitions.

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: searching the national data catalog to find APIs, returning metadata (name, publisher, endpoint) rather than data. It explicitly distinguishes itself from data-fetching tools by stating it does NOT fetch data, and positions itself as a discovery tool for building modules.

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 usage guidance: use it when no typed source covers the question, and use it to discover APIs, not to answer data questions. It also implies that other sibling tools (typed sources) should be preferred when they fit.

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