Søk i katalogen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that an empty query with filters returns all matching resources, that the response includes aggregations with counts, and that aggregations reveal valid filter values. It doesn't cover response structure beyond aggregations, but for a search tool that is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: core function, use cases, aggregations behavior, and empty-query semantics. Nothing feels redundant or padded.

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 complex 8-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is searched, how filtering and pagination work at a high level, and what aggregations are for. It doesn't give full response shape or sorting details, but the schema and the description together are enough to call it correctly.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds value by explaining the purpose of aggregations (which filter values exist and their counts) and the empty-query-with-filters behavior, beyond what the schema's includeAggregations description states.

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 statement: full-text search across title, description, and keywords with filters and pagination. It also frames when this tool is the right choice ('presisjon og kontroll'), which partly distinguishes it from siblings, though it never names an alternative search 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?

'Bruk dette når du vil ha presisjon og kontroll' gives an explicit use case, and it adds counting resources and discovering valid filter values via aggregations. It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative.

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