search_workplaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful default behavior of reading from the top of the register when no filters are supplied, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, describe permissions or rate limits, or explain what the returned records contain.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the fallback behavior stated immediately after. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 search tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic filtering but leaves gaps around return values and output shape. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to understand what comes back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that the four named filters are optional and can be omitted, but it omits any mention of the 'full' or 'limit' parameters, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Search workplaces in Statistics Sweden's business register'), making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like search_legal_entities or count_workplaces, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives implied usage guidance by naming the four filter fields and noting that filters can be omitted to read from the top of the register. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of count_workplaces, get_workplace, or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.

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