Hent en uttalelse fra Sivilombudet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the returned content is the complete text of a single statement and adds the useful citation format SOM-ÅÅÅÅ-NNNN. It does not mention output shape, errors, access constraints, or the effect of maxChars, but the core retrieval behavior is reasonably clear.

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 short, focused sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the citation convention is compactly provided in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a sibling set containing several similar retrieval tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain when to choose this over ombudsman_search or caselaw_get, nor does it clarify the purpose of type and maxChars. An agent gets the basic what but not enough surrounding context for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 only 33%: only 'id' has an explanatory description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; the case-number note is about the returned text's citation format, not about the id, type, or maxChars parameters. The description therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 title and description identify a clear verb and resource: retrieving one full statement/uttalelse from Sivilombudet. The phrase 'Hele teksten i én uttalelse' unambiguously indicates full-text retrieval of a single opinion. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools such as get_document, caselaw_get, or ombudsman_search.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the full text of one statement and mentions how the case number appears for citation purposes. It does not state when to use this tool over ombudsman_search, caselaw_get, or get_document, nor does it explain that the id should come from a search hit. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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