Hent full metadata for én ressurs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns catalog metadata, that datasets expose distributions with downloadURL/accessURL, and that setting format to turtle/jsonld/rdfxml changes the response to an RDF graph. This goes beyond the schema by revealing output structure and interpretation.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope and lookup keys, the second explains the most important output field and the downstream action, and the third describes the format switch. The most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a strong practical context: where the id comes from, what the key dataset field contains, how to continue to fetch_data, and how to request alternate formats. The main gap is that the `full` flag and the type-required constraint are left for the schema rather than integrated into the usage narrative.

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 coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond property names: it explains the id/uri distinction, highlights distributions as the key dataset field, and explains the functional effect of the format parameter. It does not cover the `full` parameter explicitly, but that is already described in 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 uses a specific retrieval verb ('Hent') and names the exact resource scope: everything the catalog knows about one resource, addressed by FDK-id or RDF-URI. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the metadata lookup step between search and fetch_data.

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 concrete guidance on when to use the tool: after a search hit, with an FDK-id, or directly with an RDF-URI. It also explains the downstream workflow—extract downloadURL/accessURL from distributions and pass them to fetch_data—and when to switch format for an RDF graph. It does not explicitly list when not to use it relative to find_organization or sparql, but the intended flow is clear.

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