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.