OGC: hva finnes i dette punktet?

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals the default query scope (all collections except map-sheet/delineation layers) and that skipped layers are reported in “hoppet_over”, plus source and license variability. It does not mention error behavior, response format, or potential performance, so it is not a full 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes behavioral or usage context. A small redundancy exists between the provenance sentence and the earlier list of NGU/HI sources, preventing a 5.

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 definition is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers data source, parameter lookup, default collection behavior, and an alternative. However, with no output schema it does not describe the return shape beyond a passing reference to “hoppet_over”, and coordinate reference system/error handling are left implicit.

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 67% and the description adds meaning for samling (default all collections) and tjeneste (find via ogc_tjenester or use full URL), but required lat/lon parameters lack any coordinate-system or format guidance beyond “koordinat”. The schema already documents antall, radius_m, samling, and tjeneste, so the marginal value over the schema is moderate.

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?

States a specific verb (“Henter data i et koordinat”), a concrete resource type (Norwegian OGC API Features services from NGU and Havforskningsinstituttet), and the coordinate/radius mode. It also explicitly names ngu_grunnforhold as the tool to use instead for ground-condition queries, which differentiates it from a sibling.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use guidance: find tjeneste via ogc_tjenester or supply a full landing-page URL, and states that ngu_grunnforhold should be used for residential ground conditions. The default all-collections behavior is also described, so an agent knows what will happen if samling is omitted.

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