Norwegian Place Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need only add context beyond safety. It does: it enumerates the returned data (all written name forms incl. Sámi/minority forms, status, type, county, municipality, coordinates, last-updated date, boundary geometry where available), the data source and licence (Kartverket, NLOD 2.0), and that no auth is required. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the safe-read annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words: what the tool does, what it returns, and context about data source/licence/auth. The core purpose is front-loaded and 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 single-parameter, read-only detail endpoint, the description combined with the schema and annotations is complete. It names the ID source, enumerates the return fields, and clarifies no auth is needed. The output schema exists, so return structure is already specified.

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?

The input schema already covers place_id at 100% with a detailed description, type information, an example value (307915 for Oslo), and its origin. The tool description restates that the id comes from search_names or search_by_point but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the full record for a single Norwegian place') and specifies the exact identifier needed (stedsnummer id). It names the two sibling search tools that produce this id, which clearly distinguishes it from search_names and search_by_point.

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 a clear precondition: the caller must already have a stedsnummer id, and it explicitly points to search_names or search_by_point as the source of that id. This effectively routes an agent without an id toward the search siblings. However, it does not explicitly state 'use search_names or search_by_point when you don't have an id', so the alternative guidance is slightly implied rather than fully explicit.

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