search_adult_education

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it's a search/filtering tool (implied read-only), returns education instances with specific fields (title, location, pace, etc.), and includes pagination parameters (page, size with max 100). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core behavior adequately for a search tool.

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 (Use cases, Returns, Filter, Example), making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Filtrera efter stad' in use cases and 'town' in filter). Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, use cases, return values, parameters with semantics, and an example. However, it lacks details on output format structure, error cases, or pagination behavior beyond parameter names, leaving minor gaps for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by listing all parameters in the 'FILTER' section with explanations and examples (e.g., 'searchTerm: Sökord', 'town: Stad', 'typeOfSchool: "yh", "sfi", "komvuxgycourses"', 'distance: "true"/"false"', 'paceOfStudy: "100" (heltid), "50" (halvtid)'), and includes additional parameters like 'page' and 'size' in the schema. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sök vuxenutbildningar med omfattande filter' (Search adult education with comprehensive filters). It specifies the resource (adult education) and action (search with filters), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_adult_education_details' (which retrieves details) or 'filter_adult_education_by_distance' (which is more specific).

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 YH, SFI, Komvux courses, filtering by location/distance/pace, and planning further education. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_courses' or 'search_programs' from the sibling list, though the focus on adult education implies some differentiation.

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