SMHI: hent målinger

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns actual (not forecast) measurements with timestamps and quality flags, and it identifies the data source and license. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but for a simple read operation it adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by source and license. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 with three parameters fully described in the schema. The description states what is returned (measurements with time and quality flags), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not detail the response structure or error cases, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward data-fetch tool.

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 input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the default for 'periode' and the meaning of 'corrected-archive'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 action ('Henter faktiske målinger') and the resource ('en parameter på én stasjon'), and indicates the return contents (tidspunkt og kvalitetsflagg). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like smhi_parametere (which list parameters) and smhi_stasjoner (which list stations), since it is specifically about fetching measurements for a known station/parameter.

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 implies the use case (fetching observed measurements) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The schema references smhi_stasjoner and smhi_parametere as sources for parameter/station codes, but the description itself lacks such routing guidance.

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