UDIR: slå opp én skole

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves details, but does not mention side effects, error handling, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The source and license information is contextual but not behavioral.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core functionality, and the second provides source/license information. No filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe what 'detaljer' includes or how errors are handled, but the low complexity reduces the need for extensive detail. The description gives the essential context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'NSR-id fra udir_skoler' already providing semantic meaning about where the id comes from. The tool description adds only 'via NSR-id', which is largely redundant given the schema. The description does not provide additional context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Henter detaljer for én enhet i skoleregisteret via NSR-id' – a specific verb (Henter), a specific object (detaljer for én enhet), and the method (via NSR-id). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool udir_skoler, which likely lists multiple schools.

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 a workflow through the parameter description 'NSR-id fra udir_skoler', indicating that the id comes from the sibling list tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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