Søk i Sivilombudets uttalelser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful context: statements are non-binding but followed in practice and serve as an established legal source. Still, it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any limitations of the full-text search behavior itself.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core search purpose appears first, followed by the legal context, and the critical `type` override is placed last. Every sentence contributes, though the legal-status paragraph is useful context rather than invocation-critical.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what a successful search returns, how results are ordered, or how to go from a result to a specific document via siblings like ombudsman_get. It explains the corpus well but is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate. It does clarify the `type` parameter by explaining what `besoksrapporter` returns, but it adds nothing about `limit`, `offset`, or how the date filters interact with the search. The schema already documents `query`, `to`, and `from`, so the description adds marginal value beyond it.

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 'Fulltekstsøk i Sivilombudets uttalelser,' a specific verb plus resource, and clarifies the corpus as roughly 2,000 cases on administrative case processing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like caselaw_search or preparatory_search, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 clearly instructs when to set `type: "besoksrapporter"` for visit reports versus the default statements, which is a useful usage cue. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling search tools, leaving the choice mostly implied.

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