Hent en lov eller forskrift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns, and importantly warns that large laws return truncated text when includeText is set. It does not mention edge cases like ambiguous names or empty results, but the core 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?

Two dense sentences, with the primary lookup methods and result contents front-loaded. The second sentence handles the includeText caveat efficiently. No filler or repetition.

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 four parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context: how to reference documents, what output to expect, when text is truncated, and which sibling to use instead. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without further clarification.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining accepted reference formats ('arbeidsmiljøloven', dokid, LOV-kode), clarifying includeText's truncation caveat, and pointing to search for large full-text needs.

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 verb and resource: 'Slå opp et dokument' (look up a document) using common name, docid, or legacy code. It clearly describes what is returned—metadata and a table of contents—and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search and get_article by describing whole-document retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use an alternative: for large laws with includeText, the text may be truncated, and 'search med docId' is better. This is a clear when-not-to-use condition with a named alternative.

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