hent_kollektivdekning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data source, coverage completeness, and that 'no results' is reliable. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Missing details on output format beyond a high-level list.

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 are efficient and front-loaded with the main action. The inclusion of source and licensing information is slightly extraneous but does not hinder clarity. Could be more concise by omitting the last sentence.

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 no output schema, the description provides a basic overview of return fields (stops with distance, transport modes, lines) but lacks structure or field types. For a tool with 4 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

All 4 parameters have thorough descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., coordinating system WGS84). 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 finds public transport stops around a coordinate (WGS84) and lists returned information (distance, transport modes, lines). It is distinct from sibling tools hent_grontareal and hent_stoysone.

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?

Description implies when to use (when stops near a coordinate are needed) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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