hent_flomaktsomhet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool distinguishes between 'no hit' and 'not mapped' and mentions the source and geographic scope. It does not clarify read-only nature but implies safety through lookup operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficient. Every sentence adds value: what it checks, what it returns, and the source.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the key return distinction (no hit vs. not mapped). It does not specify exact format but is adequate for a lookup tool with two numeric parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what schema provides (WGS84, examples). It reinforces the coordinate system but adds minimal semantic value.

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 checks if a coordinate lies within NVE's flood risk area and detailed flood zone. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'hent_skredaktsomhet' (landslide) by specifying flood-related functionality.

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 provides clear context (checking flood risk for coordinates) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the sibling tool. However, the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer usage.

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