Slå opp utgiver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the bidirectional lookup behavior and explains the hierarchical meaning of orgPath with concrete examples. It does not describe result multiplicity or limit behavior, but the core lookup behavior is transparent.

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 three compact, front-loaded sentences: core purpose first, then a concrete orgPath example, then the reverse lookup case. Every sentence earns its place with useful, non-redundant information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the essential inputs, the returned orgPath concept, and both lookup directions with an example. It lacks explicit response shape and limit details, but it is actionable enough for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 describes `name` but not `limit`, so schema coverage is 50%. The description adds useful meaning to `name` by showing it can be a full/partial name or an organization number and by linking it to orgPath, but it does not explain the `limit` parameter or behavior when multiple organizations match.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finn organisasjonsnummer og orgPath for en utgiver'. It clearly distinguishes this from generic siblings like search or get_resource by focusing on publisher identifier lookup and the orgPath filter value.

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 contexts: use it to obtain the orgPath needed for publisher-filtered searches, and use it in reverse to resolve organization numbers found in aggregations. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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