MET: farevarsel for et punkt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source and license, which is useful context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, mention any rate limits, or describe what happens with invalid coordinates. The behavioral implications are largely missing.

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 brief and to the point, with two short sentences. The first clearly states the function, and the second adds source/licensing information. No redundant content is present, though the license info could be seen as secondary for tool invocation.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain more about the response format, parameter usage, and operational constraints. It only covers purpose and source, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'lat' and 'lon' parameters beyond 'coordinates'. It does not clarify the order, format, or constraints (e.g., valid ranges). Since the schema only says 'number', the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: 'Current warnings (MetAlerts) for coordinates' — a specific verb and resource. The title adds 'for a point', which distinguishes it from sibling met_varsel, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 context implies this is for fetching current weather warnings at a specific coordinate location. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over met_varsel or other sibling tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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