IdősotthonMérleg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states what the tool does and says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or what the comparison returns, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is as concise as possible for its limited scope.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the comparison returns (e.g., which attributes are compared) to help an agent invoke it correctly. It only states the basic purpose and parameter count range, leaving the return behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds only 'by id' and the 2–5 range, both of which are already conveyed by the property name 'ids' and the schema's minItems/maxItems constraints. No id format or source is explained.

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 (comparison), resource (nursing homes), and scope (2–5 by id). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_home or search_homes.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when a side-by-side comparison of multiple homes is needed. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_home, search_homes, or list_cities, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the returned field set and the conditional 'prices where published', but it says nothing about id format, not-found behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits for what is presumably a public-register read.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated after the colon. No filler, though the parenthetical 'incl. premium' slightly interrupts the field list.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by naming the main return fields and flagging conditional pricing. Still missing enough for confident invocation: id format, behavior when the home is not found, and whether omitted fields mean 'not published' or 'empty'.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is typed only as a string. The description confirms the id identifies one nursing home but gives no format, source, or example, so an agent cannot tell whether it is a slug, UUID, or register number without trial and error.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource ('Full register data for one nursing home by id'), and enumerates the returned domains: operator, places incl. premium, care types, contact, prices. The 'one nursing home by id' phrasing implicitly contrasts with the list-oriented siblings (search_homes, list_cities), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' and 'one nursing home' signal this is the single-record detail lookup as opposed to search_homes or compare_homes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite that the id must first come from search_homes, and no exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned dataset (towns plus home counts and place counts), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether results are paginated, ordered, or how the default filtering behaves. For a simple read-only listing this is acceptable but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource scope. It is a noun fragment rather than a complete statement of action, which slightly weakens front-loading but wastes nothing.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what the result contains, which is the main gap the absent output schema leaves. It falls short on the undocumented min_count parameter and on any hint of ordering or result limits.

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 0% and the single parameter min_count is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'home counts and number of places' describes output fields, not the filter, so an agent cannot tell whether min_count thresholds towns by number of homes, places, or something else.

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 names a specific resource (Hungarian towns with nursing homes) and the fields returned (home counts, number of places), so an agent can tell it enumerates a city-level dataset. The verb is implicit and no sibling is named, but none of the siblings (compare_homes, get_home, search_homes, send_enquiry) operate on cities, so confusion risk is low.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_homes or get_home, nor any mention of prerequisites, filtering behaviour, or result size. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data provenance ('official social-care register'), which implies an authoritative read-only dataset, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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 tight sentences: the first establishes what and where, the second lists the filters. Zero filler and the identity of the resource is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers scope and filter dimensions adequately but leaves return shape, result limits, and empty-result behavior unaddressed. It is workable but not fully self-contained.

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 67%, and the description compensates well by enumerating the five filter dimensions and pairing the Hungarian terms (idősek otthona, gondozóház) with the type parameter values. Only 'limit' goes unexplained in both places, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Hungarian nursing homes / temporary care homes) plus the authoritative source (official social-care register). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_home and compare_homes, though it never names them explicitly.

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 filter list (city, county, type, operator type, name) implies the intended browsing/lookup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_home, compare_homes, or list_cities. An agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: the action shares the user's name and contact details with third parties, requires explicit consent, and forbids including health information in the message. It does not state whether the enquiry is reversible, how quickly it is dispatched, or any rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then guardrails, with zero filler. The consent gate and the health-information prohibition are stated as direct instructions that an agent can act on.

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 six-parameter mutation/communication tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical gaps: consent, third-party data sharing, and message content restrictions. It omits the 'care' parameter's meaning and any indication of the result of a successful send, but the description is otherwise sufficient to invoke it safely.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does for several parameters: userConsent is tied to the explicit consent condition, homeIds is implicitly bounded to 1–3, and message is constrained to exclude health data; contact purpose (shared with homes) is also clarified. The 'care' parameter is never explained, leaving one of six parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send the user's enquiry about a place') plus the recipient scope (1–3 nursing homes) and the effect (homes contact the user). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (search_homes, get_home, compare_homes, list_cities), which all retrieve rather than dispatch.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use gate: 'ONLY call this when the user has explicitly asked for it and agreed that their name and contact details are shared', with the matching condition for setting userConsent=true. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., search_homes for browsing before enquiring), so it falls short of the 5 level.

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