get_school_units_by_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns ('RETURNERAR: Skolenheter med angiven status') and lists the status values, which helps understand the tool's behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination details (though 'limit' parameter hints at result limiting).

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, status values). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though the Swedish language might require translation for some agents.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose, use cases, and status values well, but lacks details about the 'limit' parameter, return format specifics, and behavioral constraints. For a filtering tool with no output schema, more information about what exactly gets returned would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it lists the status values (AKTIV, UPPHORT, VILANDE) and mentions filtering by status, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The description adds some value for the 'status' parameter by providing the enum values, but completely ignores the 'limit' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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: 'Filtrera skolenheter efter status' (Filter school units by status). It specifies the verb (filter) and resource (school units), and the Swedish text is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_school_units' or 'search_school_units_by_name', which likely offer broader search capabilities.

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: finding active schools, listing closed schools, tracking dormant units, and statistics/analysis. This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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