Trafikkmeldinger for et område eller en vei

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the key behavioral nuance around 'tidspunkt' – that without it you get all registered messages, not just currently active ones. It also explains flexible road number formatting ('E6', 'fv27', 'riksveg 3', '27'). It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but the described behavior is sufficient for safe usage.

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 three sentences, each adding critical information: main purpose, parameter tips, and an explicit alternative. No fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured for quick scanning.

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 query tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, filter dimensions, a key behavioral nuance, and an alternative tool. It doesn't describe return fields or sorting, but the provided information is enough for correct invocation in most scenarios. Slightly incomplete regarding expected output, but strong overall.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining road number syntax in plain language ('Veinummer kan skrives slik folk snakker') and clarifying the meaning of the 'tidspunkt' parameter (active vs. all registered). This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, earning a 4.

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 'Henter' and the resource 'vegarbeid, stengte veier, ulykker og andre trafikkmeldinger fra Statens vegvesen', making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'langs_ruta' by explicitly directing trip planners to that alternative, ensuring clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage context: when to use the tool (querying traffic messages for an area/road), and when not to (use 'langs_ruta' for trip planning). It also gives parameter-level advice, such as the effect of omitting 'tidspunkt' (all registered messages including inactive night work) versus providing it (only relevant messages). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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