Kartverket: høyde over havet for et punkt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the unit (meters), data source (Kartverket/Geonorge), and license (CC BY 4.0), which is useful. However, it does not mention coordinate system, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise: two sentences plus a source/license line. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage tip is relevant, and the provenance/license adds necessary context without fluff. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose, unit, and usage context. However, it omits the coordinate system and return value structure, which are important for a lookup tool. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 no descriptions for lat/lon and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for koordinater' without explaining the coordinate format, order, or bounds. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 returns terrain height in meters for coordinates ('Terrenghøyde i meter for koordinater'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like kartverket_sted and kartverket_adresse. The title further clarifies it provides height above sea level for a point.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool with met_varsel ('Nyttig sammen med met_varsel') and explains why elevation affects weather forecasts in Norway. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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