Discover Apiverket Endpoints

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds detail about return values (paths, parameters, descriptions) and behavior with no arguments (returns categories). This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 (Args, Examples, Returns). It is concise, uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence serves a purpose. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, simple behavior), the description is fully complete. It covers all inputs, explains behavior comprehensively, and describes return values. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter usage (e.g., 'Use without query to browse a category'), providing examples, and clarifying constraints (maxLength hinted in schema). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Search and browse available Swedish government data endpoints'. It specifies the verb (search and browse), resource (endpoints), and distinctively positions it as a discovery tool complementary to the sibling govdata_query.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to find the right endpoint before calling govdata_query', providing clear context. It includes examples for different use cases and explains behavior with no arguments. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where this tool should not be used, leaving a minor gap.

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