search_subjects

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 subjects with code, name, description, version) and provides an example, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, usage cases, returns, example) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the Swedish/English mix slightly affects readability. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear and followed by useful supporting information.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose and return format adequately, but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation and behavioral context. The example helps but doesn't fully address the complexity of a search tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 fails to compensate adequately. While it mentions schooltype and timespan in the example, it doesn't explain typeOfSyllabus at all. The example provides some context for two parameters but leaves the third completely undocumented, and doesn't explain parameter relationships or constraints beyond what's minimally implied.

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 subjects in the Swedish National Agency for Education's curriculum, specifying the resource (subjects) and context (curriculum). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_subject_details or get_subject_versions by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval of specific details or versions.

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 explicit usage cases (finding subjects by school type, comparing over time, exploring structure) which clearly indicate when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like search_courses or search_curriculums for different resource types.

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