sok_bygning

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses what the tool returns and critically notes missing data (building year), the proxy nature of SEFRAK, and data source. It sets clear expectations for an open dataset.

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 a single coherent paragraph with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists return fields and caveats efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all return fields and important behavioral details (data source, missing year, proxy flags). It is complete for a query tool with moderate complexity.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The description adds minimal extra value for parameters but does provide default values and usage suggestions for radiusMeter, earning a baseline 3.

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 it finds buildings around a coordinate (WGS84) and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sok_adresse or sok_eiendom by specifying its unique function.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (finding buildings near a point) and includes important contextual notes about data source, limitations (no building year), and proxy fields, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond sibling names.

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