hent_hoyde

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of 'DTM 1m' where available, indicating resolution. However, it lacks details on coverage area (assumed Norway), error handling, or whether height is returned for coordinates outside the dataset. More behavioral context would improve score.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose and data source. Efficient and clear.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies unit (meter over havet) and data source. Could mention return format (number) but not essential. Slight gap in output description prevents a 5.

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 clear lat/lon definitions. The description adds context about the data source and DTM 1m, but most parameter meaning is already in 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'hent' (get) and the resource 'terrenghøyde' (terrain height) with a specific data source (Kartverket's height API). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all search tools (address, building, property, etc.) by focusing on coordinate-based height retrieval.

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 implies usage when needing terrain height for a coordinate, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided, though the context of siblings makes it somewhat clear.

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