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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Hämta' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety or return format (e.g., whether it returns a simple array or requires pagination). It adds no context beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent without information about potential side effects or response structure.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what a 'category code' is, how the list is structured, or whether it is static or dynamic. With siblings like get_data_dictionary, additional context on scope would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'category codes' clarifies what the tool returns, which is relevant to understanding the output context.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Hämta' - fetch) and a specific resource ('kategorikoder från Regeringskansliet' - category codes from the Government Office). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_g0v_document_types by focusing on category codes rather than document 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 implies usage ('when you need category codes') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. For a simple list-retrieval tool, the implied usage is sufficient for a basic understanding, but lacks explicit differentiation from related siblings.

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