Kart: finn en karttjeneste uten å kjenne URL-en

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful traits beyond the schema: results come from a harvested index of WMS services, iLag=true is slower on first call but yields broader matches, and licenses vary per service. It does not describe the output format, but for a simple read-only search this is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose and when-to-use guidance. The trailing 'Kilde' and 'Lisens' lines add useful context, though the 'Kilde: Generisk WMS-klient' phrasing is slightly vague and could confuse rather than inform.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly: what is searched, when to use it, and the key parameter behavior. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit statement about the returned result shape, but that is not a blocking gap.

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 schema already documents both parameters and examples. The description adds real value by explaining the tradeoff of iLag=true ('tregere første gang, men treffer bredere'), which goes beyond the schema's simple boolean definition.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Søker i en indeks over norske WMS-tjenester' from data.norge.no. It is clear and distinct in behavior, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like kart_lag or ogc_tjenester, so differentiation is more implicit than direct.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Bruk denne FØRST når du leter etter kartdata ... og ikke vet hvilken tjeneste som har dem.' This clearly tells the agent when to prefer this tool, though it stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools.

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