Søk i forarbeider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It explicitly discloses a key behavioral limitation: the search matches titles, references, and subject terms, not full document text, because the Stortinget API lacks free-text search. It also explains the output reference format and how it feeds into preparatory_get — valuable behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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 structured in three compact paragraphs: what the tool searches, how the search behavior differs from full-text search and how to adapt, and what the hit reference is used for. Each sentence contributes distinct, necessary context with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the search correctly: scope, document types, search limitation, query strategy, and the follow-up tool. Since there is no output schema, it could have described result fields a bit more, but the citation format is covered and the operational path to preparatory_get is clear, making this adequately complete.

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 about 60%, and the description substantially enriches the most important parameter, query, by instructing users to search by the law/case name rather than by expected phrases. It also clarifies the citation/reference role of search results. It does not add much for limit/offset, but those are self-explanatory, so the description compensates well for the remaining gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Søk i Stortingets saker' over preparatory works, and enumerates the exact document types (proposisjoner, innstillinger, stortingsmeldinger, representantforslag). This clearly distinguishes it from the other search tools by domain and scope. The mention of the date range adds further precision.

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 explains when this search is relevant — when the statute text is unclear and legislative intent is needed — and gives concrete guidance on how to search (by title or name, not by expected wording). It also routes the user to preparatory_get for fetching the document text. It does not explicitly name sibling search alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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