Skolverket: detaljer om én skole

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the data source/license, which signals a read-style lookup, but it does not mention error conditions, response format, authentication, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and returned data; the second adds source and licensing context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields (rektor, skoletype, kontaktinfo, besøksadresse, WGS84-koordinater) largely completes the picture. It lacks an explicit link to the required skolverket_skoler code and error behavior, but the simple scope makes it nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'kode' parameter is fully documented as 'Skolenhetskod fra skolverket_skoler'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 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?

Description opens with a concrete verb ('Gir') and names the exact resource ('detaljer om én skoleenhet') plus the returned fields (rektor, skoletype, kontaktinfo, besøksadresse, WGS84-koordinater). The singular scope and explicit Skolverket source distinguish it from siblings like skolverket_skoler and udir_skole.

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 implies use when an agent needs detailed data for one specific school unit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over skolverket_skoler, udir_skole, or other detail endpoints. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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