search_courses

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 courses with specific fields) and provides an example, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The behavioral information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, example, tips) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but overall it's efficiently organized with no wasted text.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining purpose, parameters, and returns. It provides concrete examples and use cases. The main gap is lack of information about output format details beyond field names, but given the context, this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter context. It explains what 'schooltype' and 'subjectCode' parameters do with concrete examples ('GY' for gymnasium, 'MATMAT01c' for Mathematics 1c), mentions filtering by school type and time period, and provides guidance on using subjectCode for filtering.

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 searches for courses in Skolverket's curriculum with specific examples of use cases. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_course_details' or 'search_subjects' by focusing on course search rather than retrieval of specific details or broader subject searches.

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 provides clear usage contexts through the 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' section with four specific use cases, and the 'TIPS' section offers guidance on parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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