Search Norwegian place names

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses functional behavior: returns feature type, municipality, county, coordinates, supports wildcard, and corrects small spelling errors. This adequately informs the agent about the tool's read-only, search-like nature, though it omits details like result sorting or empty-result behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return fields, then the special features. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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?

This is a relatively simple read-type search tool. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and key behavioral nuances (wildcard, spelling correction). The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema is required since the description enumerates the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both 'query' and 'max_results' are already documented. The description adds the wildcard mention and spelling correction, but these duplicate the schema's query description ('Supports the * wildcard'). Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no significant extra meaning is added beyond what schema properties already convey.

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 ('Search official Norwegian place names'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_address (addresses) and find_place_names_near (proximity). It further states what is returned (feature type, municipality, county, coordinates), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for searching official Norwegian place names, and it highlights the wildcard and spelling correction features. However, it does not explicitly contrast with find_place_names_near or other alternatives, leaving the decision of when to use this vs. siblings partially implicit.

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