hent_stoysone

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses limitations (coverage only for certain roads and areas), data source, and the meaning of 'no hit'. There are no contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with one main sentence and a parenthetical note for limitations. It is front-loaded with the primary function. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Norsk' in source) but generally efficient.

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?

Provides substantial context on data coverage and limitations, but lacks explicit description of the return value format (e.g., boolean, zone type). Given no output schema, this is a notable gap for completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for lat and lon. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the tool's purpose, which is already captured in purpose clarity. 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks if a coordinate lies in road traffic noise zones, specifying the types of zones (støyvarselkart and strategisk støykart) and the data source (SVV Norstøy WMS). This is distinct from sibling tools for green areas and public transport.

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?

Explicitly states coverage is limited to road traffic on ERF roads and city areas, and explains that 'no hit' could mean below threshold or outside scope. Also notes that rail and airport noise are available via separate WFS services, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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