get_school_unit_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns complete school unit info, which is helpful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sections for purpose, use cases, returns, and an example, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the use cases could be more concise, and the structure, while clear, isn't perfectly front-loaded as the key purpose is stated first but followed by less critical details.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return values adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) and doesn't fully address usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'code' parameter is an 8-digit school unit code in the example, which clarifies the format beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't detail validation rules or provide examples of valid/invalid codes.

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 detaljer om en specifik skolenhet' (Get details about a specific school unit). It specifies the verb ('get details') and resource ('school unit'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_school_units_by_status' or 'search_school_units', which also retrieve school unit information but with different scopes or filters.

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 listing scenarios like checking school status or verifying school unit code, which implies when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'search_school_units' for broader queries). The example mentions using an 8-digit code, providing some context but no clear exclusions.

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