Søk i lover og forskrifter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each hit is one paragraph with an excerpt and that matched keywords are marked with quotation marks. It also explains search behavior differences for scope and docId, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but well organized: main behavior first, then query syntax examples, then scope and docId specifics. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, result shape, and important query options well. It does not explain pagination parameters like limit and offset or the type/ministry filters, but those are partly self-explanatory and the most critical usage guidance is present.

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 71%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for query syntax, exact-phrase quoting, truncation, scope:'titler', and docId restriction. It helps the agent understand how to construct effective queries, going beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: full-text search across all paragraphs of laws and regulations, with each result being a paragraph excerpt. The title 'Søk i lover og forskrifter' plus the sibling tool names like caselaw_search and preparatory_search make it clearly distinguishable from other search tools.

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?

Provides explicit query guidance: use keywords rather than questions, use quotes for exact phrases, use * for truncation, and use scope:'titler' when searching document titles. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like caselaw_search, but the in-tool guidance is strong and contextually clear.

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