Hva gjelder på dette stedet?

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call aggregates data from Kartverket, MET, and Entur, and that failed sub-parts are reported in a 'mangler' field. This gives useful behavioral context without contradicting any structured data.

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 front-loaded with the core capability and usage, followed by failure behavior and source/license. Each part has a purpose, though the source/license sentence is background rather than invocation guidance.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both invocation and expected return shape. It lists the semantic output fields and the failure field, but not exact output keys, coordinate format, or the 'timer' parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 33% (only 'timer' is described), and the description does not compensate for lat/lon. It only says 'koordinat', without specifying coordinate format, order, or bounds. The description adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: one call that returns municipality, address, elevation, current weather, warnings, and nearest stops for a coordinate. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by being an aggregator instead of a single-domain lookup.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool instead of chaining kartverket_*, met_*, and entur_* when the question is 'what applies here?'. It names the alternatives and the triggering condition, but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it.

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