Search Norwegian addresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key output fields (coordinates, postal code, municipality, cadastral numbers) and wildcard support. However, it does not mention behavior on empty results, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature (though it is implicit in a search). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the key usage hints (wildcard, return fields) are presented efficiently. 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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it returns, how to use free text vs. structured fields, and wildcard support. It does not describe error handling or limits, but the schema covers parameter constraints. The return-field disclosure compensates for the missing output schema.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the free-text vs. structured search distinction and giving a wildcard example, but the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('official Norwegian addresses (Kartverket)'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_place_names and find_addresses_near. It unambiguously signals this is an address lookup, not a place-name lookup.

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?

It provides internal usage guidance: 'Use query for free text, or the specific fields for a structured search.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_place_names) or what it should not be used for. The exclusion of place-name searches is implied but not stated.

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