OGC: hvilke norske datasett kan spørres i et punkt?

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it notes that NGU's 28 services are pulled from their own index ('så lista er fersk'), names the source, and warns that licensing varies per service. This goes beyond the minimal read-only expectation.

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 action, then the optional filter, freshness note, and downstream usage. The source/license line is a small addition but earns its place by warning about per-service licensing. No wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter optional-filter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the response conceptually contains (id and description), how to filter, and where the output is intended to be used. Nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 already documents 'sok' as filtering on id or name (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples ('løsmasser', 'gytefelt', 'grunnvann') and reaffirming that filtering is optional, making the parameter's intent easier to grasp.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lister kjente norske OGC API Features-tjenester med id og beskrivelse'. It also clarifies the relationship to the sibling tool ogc_punkt, making it distinguishable from other list-style tools in the sibling set.

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 statement 'Id-en herfra brukes i ogc_punkt' gives a concrete workflow cue: use this tool to discover service ids for later use in ogc_punkt. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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