hent_grontareal

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains approximations (park distance to nearest polygon corner), data source limitations (SSB covers primarily built-up areas), and search range (250m to 2km). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is fairly transparent.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details the two data sources and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It describes the two outputs (land type and park distance) and search range but does not specify the exact format (e.g., unit, type) or structure. Adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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% with each parameter having a brief description ('Breddegrad (WGS84)', 'Lengdegrad (WGS84)'). The tool description adds context on overall purpose but no additional parameter-level details. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves green area information around a coordinate from two specific open data sources (FKB-AR5 land type and SSB park distance). The verb 'hent' (get) and resource 'grøntareal' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings (transport, noise).

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 explains the two data sources and their limitations (SSB polygons unnamed, rural areas no park) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like hent_kollektivdekning or hent_stoysone. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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