Vegvesen: hent vegobjekter i et kartutsnitt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the coordinate system (WGS84), the output content (egenskaper og vegnavn), and a critical constraint (0.5° limit). It does not mention potential edge cases, response limits beyond the schema, or API-specific quirks, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus source/license information. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides the most important constraint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 moderately complex with six parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output includes properties and road names, and provides source/license context. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if no objects are found or how results are ordered, but for a straightforward bbox query it is largely sufficient.

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 83%, and the description adds meaningful parameter context: it gives a concrete example for the 'type' parameter (105 for speed limit) and constrains the bounding box parameters with the 0.5° per axis rule. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions (e.g., 'Østlig lengdegrad') and enhances parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Henter' (fetches) and the resource: NVDB-objekter of one type within a map extent (WGS84), including properties and road names. It also provides a concrete example ('Fartsgrense = type 105'), which helps differentiate it from the sibling tool 'vegvesen_objekttyper' that likely lists types.

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 includes a key usage constraint: the extent must be under 0.5° per axis, which guides when the tool can be used. It also implies the need to know the object type ID from a companion tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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