Kartverket: finn stedsnavn og koordinater

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (search and return coordinates/kommune/fylke) and includes source/license context, but it does not disclose result limits, no-match behavior, or response format. This is adequate but has clear 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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses only two sentences. The source and license sentence is brief and relevant, adding value without unnecessary fluff.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose, output fields, use case, source, and license. However, it omits parameter semantics for 'antall' and does not describe return shape, leaving it slightly incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'sok' parameter can be inferred as the place-name query from the tool's purpose, but 'antall' is not mentioned or explained in the description, leaving the agent without guidance for that parameter.

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 states a specific action: 'Søker i stedsnavnregisteret og gir koordinater, kommune og fylke' (searches the place-name register and gives coordinates, municipality, and county). It also clearly differentiates from sibling tools like kartverket_adresse by focusing on place names and explicitly mentions converting a place name to lat/lon for weather forecasts.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Bruk denne for å gjøre et stedsnavn om til lat/lon før et værvarsel'. It provides a clear use case, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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