Skolverket: finn skole

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey meaningful traits: a non-empty search term is mandatory, the search can be limited to one municipality, and the data source is Skolverket under CC0. It does not disclose matching behavior, result limits, pagination, or return shape.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the search operation, the required-input rationale, and the source/license in just a few lines. 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 low-complexity search tool with two string parameters, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what to search, required input, optional filter, and data source. It omits return-value details, but those are not essential for making the call, and no output schema exists to set a higher expectation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters well: 'søk' as part of a school name and 'kommunkod' as a four-digit code. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Søker'), resource ('det svenske skolenhetsregistret'), and search criteria ('på skolenavn') with an optional municipal filter. This clearly identifies a search operation over Swedish school units, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling skolverket_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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: search text is required because the registry has over 10,000 units, and it explains the optional kommune restriction. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools or when not to use it.

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