search_school_units

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally addresses behavior. It mentions the tool returns a list with code, name, and status, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results.

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 has clear section headers (ANVÄNDNINGSFALL, RETURNERAR, EXEMPEL) which improves structure, but contains some redundancy. The example essentially repeats information already implied in the status parameter description. The front-loading is adequate but could be more efficient.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and returns, but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata, particularly regarding behavioral characteristics and comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 and 3 parameters, the description adds minimal value. It mentions filtering by status with example values, but doesn't explain the 'name' parameter's partial matching behavior or the 'limit' parameter's purpose. The schema itself provides parameter descriptions, but the tool description doesn't enhance understanding beyond what's in the structured 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 searches for school units with filters, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_school_units_by_name' or 'get_school_units_by_status', which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 like finding schools in an area, filtering by status, building school registers, and planning/analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_school_units_by_name' or 'get_school_units_by_status' from the sibling list.

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