NVE: nettleietariffer per nettselskap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results cover all Norwegian grid companies, include fixed/energy components, include VAT variants, and support county filtering. It does not mention pagination, response format, units, or historical coverage, but for a data-retrieval tool the core behavioral context is present.

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 compact and front-loads the essential data content, then adds provenance and license information. Every sentence carries useful information, though the license line is auxiliary rather than core.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool for the intended NVE tariff use case. The main omissions are output-shape and units, but the description's data-content coverage makes the tool reasonably complete for an agent.

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 100%, so every parameter already has an individual description in the schema. The tool description adds context about fylke filtering and data composition but no parameter-level details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 states the specific data domain: grid-network tariffs for households and holiday homes from all Norwegian grid companies over a period, including fixed and energy components with and without VAT. This is distinct from the sibling tools, which cover maps, weather, schools, and statistics. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit action verb, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs Norwegian grid tariffs for households or holiday homes, optionally filtered by county. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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