UDIR: finn en læreplan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies scope ('alle gjeldende LK20-læreplaner') and intended output ('Gir koden du trenger'), and even adds source/license context. However, it does not describe response format, matching behavior, or empty-result/error handling.

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 action and object, the second explains the downstream use. The source/license line is short and adds useful provenance without bloating the text.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and relationship to a sibling, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the response contains beyond 'koden'. An agent would benefit from knowing whether matches return a list, status info, or only the code.

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 each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Søker i alle gjeldende LK20-læreplaner på navn eller kode.' It also explains the output's purpose by pointing to the downstream sibling 'udir_kompetansemaal', which clearly differentiates it from related tools.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to search curricula and obtain the code needed for 'udir_kompetansemaal'. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools beyond that relationship, so it stops short of a full 5.

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