sok_kommune

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions reliance on an external API (Kartverket), which implies network dependency and potential delays or errors, but it does not clarify read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the point is outside Norway. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise, contains no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It explains the input, coordinate system, and data source. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., municipality name, county name, or codes) and possible error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 parameters 'lat' and 'lon' have 100% schema description coverage (including WGS84 notation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 tool looks up municipality and county for a geographic point in WGS84 via Kartverket's API. It uses a specific verb 'slå opp' and resource 'kommune og fylke', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sok_adresse' (address lookup) and 'sok_bygning' (building 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?

The description implies usage when you need municipality/county from coordinates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'sok_adresse' or 'sok_stedsnavn'. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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