search_curriculums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list of curriculums with code, name, and validity period, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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). It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the Swedish language might add minor cognitive load for non-Swedish speakers.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format but lacks parameter explanations. For a search tool with multiple optional parameters, this creates significant gaps. The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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. While it mentions searching for curriculums by school type and time period in the examples, it doesn't explain the three parameters (schooltype, timespan, typeOfSyllabus) or their relationships. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 curriculums (e.g., LGR11, GY11) with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like get_curriculum_details (which retrieves details) by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_courses or search_subjects beyond the curriculum focus.

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' section provides implied usage contexts: finding current curriculums, comparing between school types, and understanding structure. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_curriculum_details or get_curriculum_versions, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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