get_education_areas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool returns a list of education areas, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a complete list or paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential performance characteristics. The description provides basic return information but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, returns) and efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and specifying the return value.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of purpose and usage. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format more specifically (e.g., structure of the education areas list, what fields are included) to be fully complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool does and returns, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('alla utbildningsområden' - all education areas). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on education areas rather than courses, programs, or other entities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_school_types' or 'get_study_path_codes' that might also return categorical data.

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 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (Use cases) section provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see available areas, filter education searches, and explore education offerings. This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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