Vis dimensjonene i en tabell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds non-obvious domain behavior: dimensions marked `kanUtelates` are summed by SSB if omitted, giving totals instead of a breakdown, and it warns that code sets differ per table. These are useful behavioral hints beyond the schema. It does not explicitly address side effects, but the tool is clearly ametadata lookup, so the gap is minor.

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?

Three compact, purposeful sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by explicit usage guidance and then a key domain caveat. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter metadata retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use it, and a subtle behavioral detail about totals. It doesn't explicitly describe the exact response format, but the statement of what it returns ('dimensions... and codes') is sufficiently clear for correct 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 100%, with meaningful descriptions for both `tableId` and `maxValues`. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The mention of 'koder' loosely ties to `tableId` but does not enrich it further.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it shows which dimensions a table has and which codes each dimension accepts. The title 'Vis dimensjonene i en tabell' reinforces the action, and the content distinguishes it from the `data` sibling by framing it as a pre-query inspection step.

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 instructs 'Bruk dette før `data`', giving a clear when-to-use rule supported by the rationale that each table has its own code set, without which the query becomes guesswork. This points directly to the relevant sibling and explains why the tool is needed first.

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