Kart: hva finnes i dette koordinatet?

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a generic WMS client (so behavior varies by service) and that license varies, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or coordinate system assumptions, leaving significant gaps.

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 very concise, with two sentences delivering the core purpose and context, plus a brief source/license note. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides some context about being a generic WMS client and returning properties. However, it lacks details about the response structure, what happens when no feature is found, or any prerequisites like coordinate reference systems, making it only partially complete 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%, with descriptions only for 'lag' and 'boks'. The description does not explain 'url', 'lat', or 'lon' beyond implying they define a point. It also doesn't clarify coordinate system or how 'boks' relates to the point, so the description adds little value over 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 performs GetFeatureInfo on a map layer and returns the properties at a point, using the specific verb 'returnerer' and resource 'kartlag'. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing this is how to get DATA out of a map layer, not just an image, which separates it from image-related map tools.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving feature data from a WMS layer, contrasting with merely obtaining an image. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though it does reference that layer names come from 'kart_lag' via the schema.

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