search_school_units_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns matching school units, supports partial name matching, and has a limit parameter. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, which are important for a search tool. This is adequate but has 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 sections (description, use cases, returns, tips), uses bullet points efficiently, and every sentence adds value without repetition. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what fields are returned), error cases, or advanced usage, making it incomplete for full agent guidance. It's minimal but viable.

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. It explains the 'name' parameter as supporting partial matching ('delmatchning', 'partiella namn'), which adds crucial meaning beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, leaving some gap. Since there are only 2 parameters and one is well-covered, a 4 is appropriate.

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 by name with partial matching ('Sök skolenheter efter namn', 'delmatchning'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_school_units' (likely broader) and 'get_school_unit_details' (specific lookup), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all search siblings, keeping it at 4.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: finding specific schools, filtering by name patterns, and identifying school groups. It implies usage but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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