get_school_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (list of school types with codes and names) and provides example values, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how the data is sourced. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, values) and is appropriately sized. The Swedish language headings add some length but don't significantly impact conciseness. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'VÄRDEN' section could be more efficiently integrated.

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 this is a simple lookup tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and provides example values. The main gap is the lack of parameter documentation, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is reasonably 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description doesn't mention the 'includeExpired' parameter at all, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. However, since this is a simple tool with only one optional parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema must carry the full parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Hämta lista över alla skoltyper' (Get list of all school types). It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('school types'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_school_unit_details' or 'search_school_units' by focusing specifically on school type classification rather than school units or other entities.

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 an 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (use cases) section that provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see available school forms, understand categorization, and filter data by school type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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