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 full burden. It discloses the data source, license, and returned fields, but does not describe default filtering (e.g., 'baraktive' defaulting to true), result limiting, or matching behavior. The absence of warnings about side effects is acceptable for a search operation, but richer behavioral context would help.

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 short sentences plus a source/license line, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information; no word is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the return fields and the source, which is helpful. It remains incomplete about parameter interactions and default behavior (e.g., 'antall' default/max and 'baraktive' s role), and does not clarify whether results are paginated or limited. Overall it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50%, and the description compensates by identifying 'navn' and 'kommunenummer' as search criteria and outlining the output fields. However, it adds nothing about 'antall' (result count limits) or the meaning/filtering behavior of 'baraktive', so parameter semantics remain only partially clarified.

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 action ('Søker i det nasjonale skoleregisteret') with explicit search criteria ('på navn og/eller kommunenummer') and lists the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular 'udir_skole' sibling as a search/list tool.

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 to find schools in the national register by name or municipality number. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion rules, but the search-oriented wording implies when it should be selected over the singular school lookup.

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