UDIR: søk etter skoler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search behavior, returns fields, and cites source/license, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there are default filters (e.g., baraktive), pagination/result limits, or error behavior. The lack of explicit safety or side-effect information means it only partially discloses behavioral traits, earning a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by source/license context. Each sentence serves a purpose; no filler. This is an example of concise and well-structured documentation.

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 there is no output schema, the description does mention return fields, which is good. However, it omits details about parameter usage (antall, baraktive), differentiation from sibling udir_skole, and behavior like result limits. The tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable, but it leaves the agent without sufficient guidance for proper invocation and interpretation of results.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds meaning for 'navn' and 'kommunenummer' (search by name/municipality), but leaves 'antall' and 'baraktive' unexplained. The 'baraktive' schema only says 'Standard true' without explaining meaning, and the description does not clarify it. Thus the description partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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 function with a specific verb ('Søker') and resource ('nasjonale skoleregisteret'), and specifies search criteria (navn og/eller kommunenummer). It also lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like udir_skole (singular) which likely fetches individual schools by ID. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool (when you need to search schools by name or municipality), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks any reference to udir_skole for single-school lookups, and does not describe when not to use it (e.g., if you need exact NSR-id lookup). Since guidance is implied rather than explicit, it earns a 3.

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