SMHI: finn målestasjon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the data source (SMHI), the license (CC BY 4.0), and the requirement for a search text, all useful signals. However, it does not describe the return format, output fields, matching behavior, or whether results may be partial or paginated.

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 short and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the key usage constraint. The source and license lines are concise and add useful provenance without bloating the description. 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?

The tool is simple and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the invocation path is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned station data looks like, such as whether it includes station IDs, names, or coordinates. This creates a notable gap, especially if the result is meant to feed into a sibling tool like smhi_observasjoner.

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 100%, and both parameters are already described clearly in the input schema ('Stedsnavn, f.eks. Malmö' and 'Parameterkode fra smhi_parametere, f.eks. 1'). The description itself adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond noting that search text is mandatory, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Søker opp') and names the exact resource ('målestasjoner') with clear scoping ('for en parameter på stedsnavn'). It also includes the operational detail that search text is required because each parameter has around 1,000 stations. This distinguishes it from siblings like smhi_observasjoner and smhi_parametere.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to find measurement stations for a given parameter by place name. It also provides an important usage constraint, that søketekst is required, which prevents agents from calling it without a search term. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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