Licence and dual attribution for FMI + Fingrid nowcast feed

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the substantive contents of the response (licence terms, attributions, rate limits) as well as implying a read-only informational call. It stops short of saying the payload is static/cached or whether attribution must be surfaced to end users in a particular form.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the return contents and the dual-provider scope. Every clause (licence, attributions, rate limits, both providers) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description substitutes by naming what the response contains, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter compliance endpoint. It could be stronger by tying the call to the nowcast feed workflow or noting whether attribution obligations differ between the two sources.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description suggests hidden inputs, which is consistent with the empty 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the resource: CC BY 4.0 licence details, required attributions, and rate limits. The phrase 'for both FMI and Fingrid' signals this is the combined scope, which separates it from the single-provider siblings fingrid_licence_info and fmi_alerts_licence_info, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives; the reader must infer from 'both FMI and Fingrid' that this is the right call when consuming the combined nowcast feed rather than a single provider. The title's reference to the nowcast feed carries this routing signal, not the description itself.

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