hent_skredaktsomhet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return value structure (hits per type, decoded type, mapping status) and distinguishes 'no hits' from 'not mapped'. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication. Given the simplicity, the transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise with three sentences that cover purpose, return value, and data source. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers input, output semantics, and data provenance. It could mention potential errors for out-of-range coordinates, but the schema constraints partially address that. Overall complete for its purpose.

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% as both parameters (lat, lon) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'sjekk' (check) and the resource 'skred-aktsomhetsområder' (avalanche hazard areas). It specifies the coordinate system (WGS84) and lists covered hazard types. The sibling tool 'hent_flomaktsomhet' is for flood hazard, providing clear differentiation.

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 when to use it (to check if a coordinate lies in avalanche hazard areas). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling, but the context of hazard types and coordinate checking is clear.

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