MET: værvarsel for et punkt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful context: the source (Meteorologisk institutt), license (NLOD 2.0 / CC BY 4.0), and that height materially affects results. However, it does not describe response format, time series nature beyond 'time-for-time', or potential external API behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and a key usage tip, with source/license appended without clutter. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema, the description should convey return expectations. It lists forecast variables (temp, wind, gusts, precipitation, symbol) and says 'time-for-time', but does not specify units, format, or response structure beyond that. Complexity is moderate, so a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 only 50% (hoyde and timer have descriptions, lat/lon do not). The description partially compensates by emphasizing the importance of the 'hoyde' parameter in Norway, but it does not add semantics for 'timer' or clarify coordinate units, leaving some gap.

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 provides time-by-time weather forecasts (temperature, wind, gusts, precipitation, symbol) for given coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like met_farevarsel (warnings) and met_sol_og_mane (sun/moon) by specifying the point-based forecast scope and listed variables.

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 gives contextual guidance: specify height when known, noting it significantly changes the forecast in Norway. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., met_farevarsel for warnings), leaving tool selection to the agent's inference.

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