SSB: hva inneholder tabellen?

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's function (listing variables with example values) and its source/license (PxWebApi, NLOD 2.0), but does not describe response format, error behavior, or any limitations. For a read-only metadata tool, this is adequate but not rich; it adds context but stops short of deeper 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a critical usage directive, and the source/license line is useful context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells what the tool does, when to use it, and its provenance. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but that's not essential for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, especially given the clear sibling context.

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 100% for the single parameter 'tabell', with a descriptive example '07459'. The description indirectly reinforces that the parameter identifies a table and that dimension codes are involved, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Lister variablene i en SSB-tabell (region, alder, år ...) med eksempelverdier.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssb_tabell_data (fetching data) and ssb_tabell_verdier (likely fetching specific values), by focusing on table metadata rather than data or values.

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 timing: 'Kjør denne FØR du henter data, ellers må du gjette dimensjonskodene.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to data-fetching operations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes it obvious that ssb_tabell_data is used for fetching data, and the instruction 'FØR du henter data' implies a preceding step.

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