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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of 'DTM 1m' where available, indicating resolution. However, it lacks details on coverage area (assumed Norway), error handling, or whether height is returned for coordinates outside the dataset. More behavioral context would improve score.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose and data source. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies unit (meter over havet) and data source. Could mention return format (number) but not essential. Slight gap in output description prevents a 5.

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% with clear lat/lon definitions. The description adds context about the data source and DTM 1m, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'hent' (get) and the resource 'terrenghøyde' (terrain height) with a specific data source (Kartverket's height API). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all search tools (address, building, property, etc.) by focusing on coordinate-based height retrieval.

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 usage when needing terrain height for a coordinate, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided, though the context of siblings makes it somewhat clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (search) but doesn't confirm non-destructiveness or state what happens on no results. Adequate but lacking some safety context.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Clearly communicates purpose and output.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. It is fairly complete for the complexity level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about the data source and output, but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema.

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 searches the Matrikkelens address register (a specific resource) and returns detailed address info. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sok_bygning' or 'sok_kommune' which search other entities.

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?

Usage is implied: use this for address searches. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but the name and siblings make it reasonably clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses what the tool returns and critically notes missing data (building year), the proxy nature of SEFRAK, and data source. It sets clear expectations for an open dataset.

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 coherent paragraph with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists return fields and caveats efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all return fields and important behavioral details (data source, missing year, proxy flags). It is complete for a query tool with moderate complexity.

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% with each parameter having a clear description. The description adds minimal extra value for parameters but does provide default values and usage suggestions for radiusMeter, earning a baseline 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 it finds buildings around a coordinate (WGS84) and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sok_adresse or sok_eiendom by specifying its unique function.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (finding buildings near a point) and includes important contextual notes about data source, limitations (no building year), and proxy fields, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns matrikkelnummer, lokalid, and representasjonspunkt but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, destructive potential (unlikely but not stated), error handling, or authentication requirements.

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: one for purpose and one for return values. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lists three return fields but omits details on structure (e.g., data types, nested fields) and does not mention pagination (treffPerSide) or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the tool description adds value by grouping parameters into logical modes (point search vs. cadastral number search), which helps the agent understand how to combine parameters correctly.

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's purpose: looking up cadastral property either by geographic point (lat/lon) or by cadastral number (knr/gnr/bnr). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sok_adresse (address) and sok_bygning (building) by specifying the type of entity (matrikkeleiendom).

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 search modes (point vs. cadastral number) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comparisons to alternatives from the sibling list, such as for when to use sok_adresse instead.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses coordinate system (WGS84), output fields (nummer, navn, kommunenummer), and source data (Kartverket WFS, open). Lacks details on rate limits or error handling but adequate for a simple lookup.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and clear output, the description is fully adequate. It explains what is returned, how to use it, and the data source.

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 descriptions for lat and lon. The description adds value by explaining the coordinate system (WGS84) and providing an example (59.93 for Oslo), plus relating output to SSB usage.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Slå opp' (look up) and resource 'statistisk grunnkrets', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sok_adresse' or 'sok_bygning'.

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?

Provides context on how the result can be used (as Region-filter in SSB tables) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions reliance on an external API (Kartverket), which implies network dependency and potential delays or errors, but it does not clarify read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the point is outside Norway. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise, contains no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It explains the input, coordinate system, and data source. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., municipality name, county name, or codes) and possible error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The parameters 'lat' and 'lon' have 100% schema description coverage (including WGS84 notation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool looks up municipality and county for a geographic point in WGS84 via Kartverket's API. It uses a specific verb 'slå opp' and resource 'kommune og fylke', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sok_adresse' (address lookup) and 'sok_bygning' (building lookup).

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 usage when you need municipality/county from coordinates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'sok_adresse' or 'sok_stedsnavn'. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool returns search results with specific fields but does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a search tool, more transparency about expected behavior is needed.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second summarizes the output fields. It is front-loaded with the most important information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining or elaborating on output structure without adding length.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must convey the return format. It lists the fields (skrivemåte, kommune, fylke, koordinater) but does not specify that results are an array, or provide any pagination details beyond the treffPerSide parameter. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameters (e.g., it does not explain how to use knr effectively). With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but since the description adds no value, it scores lower.

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 searches the Central Place Name Register (Sentralt Stedsnavnregister) from Kartverket and returns matches with writing, municipality, county, and coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Søk') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sok_adresse (search address) and sok_bygning (search building) by focusing on place names.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sok_adresse or sok_bygning. It only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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