List Blocket regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only 'list' operation and notes the output is 'valid' names, which adds some trustworthiness. But it does not disclose any potential limitations, error conditions, or additional behavioral details beyond the obvious.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and delivers all necessary information in a compact form. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the target use (search_blocket's locations), and the scope (valid region names). No additional context is needed to use this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining the output is intended for search_blocket's `locations` parameter, which is useful context beyond the empty input 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 lists valid region (län) names, explicitly tying them to the `locations` argument of search_blocket(). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blocket_categories and search_tradera.

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 clear context: these names are to be passed into search_blocket()'s `locations` argument, indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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