Kartverket: hvilken adresse ligger her?

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reverse geocoding with radius) and adds useful context about data source and license (Kartverket/Geonorge, CC BY 4.0). It does not detail return format or limitations, but for a simple read-only geocoding API, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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, front-loaded with the main function. The source and license information is concise and useful for context. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description states the purpose and data source but does not describe the response structure (e.g., address fields returned). This is a gap, but the core operation is sufficiently clear given the tool's simplicity.

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 33% (only radius has a description). The description helps by explaining that lat/lon define a coordinate point and that the search is within a radius, but it does not specify coordinate system, units, or order. Since lat/lon are self-explanatory, the description adds moderate value.

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 'revers-geokoding' (reverse geocoding), finding nearest addresses within a radius from a coordinate point. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like kartverket_sted (place names) and kartverket_hoyde (elevation).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a coordinate point and need to find nearby addresses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous, and the sibling list makes the alternative tools identifiable.

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