Vegvesen: finn objekttype-id i NVDB

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (search and return an id) and adds source/license context, but does not explain edge cases such as empty search, multiple matches, or output format. Since this is a read-only lookup, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but more detail on expected behavior would improve transparency.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary action and resource, provides a usage hint, and ends with source/license attribution. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be more complete by explaining the output format or how to use the returned id with vegvesen_vegobjekter, but the given information is sufficient for basic invocation and understanding.

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%: the 'sok' parameter already has an example ('F.eks. "fartsgrense"'). The tool description adds further examples but does not introduce new meaning (e.g., that the parameter is optional or how to handle empty input). The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 searches NVDB's 424 road object types and returns the needed id. It provides concrete examples ('fartsgrense, rekkverk, skilt, tunnel') and explicitly positions it as a precursor to fetching objects, distinguishing it from the sibling tool vegvesen_vegobjekter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Kjør denne først hvis du ikke vet id-en' (run this first if you don't know the id). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the sequential hint ('først') clearly implies using another tool after obtaining the id.

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