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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this is read-only (though 'Full official data for one school' implies read), what happens if the id doesn't exist, or whether KAV ids are the only accepted format. For a tool with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a notable gap.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the returned fields. No filler, though the parenthetical Hungarian gloss is an aside rather than essential.

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?

The return-value enumeration compensates for the absence of an output schema, and the KAV id hint compensates for the undocumented parameter. But with no annotations and no schema descriptions, an agent still doesn't know error behavior, auth requirements, or id format. Minimum viable.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only partially compensates by naming KAV id and its Hungarian expansion (képzőszervi azonosító), but does not specify format (numeric? string?), whether it must be exact, or what happens on invalid ids. With 1 required parameter and zero coverage, more is needed.

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+resource: retrieves full official data for one driving school. The enumerated fields (address, categories, VSM/ÁKÓ stats, ranks) concretely define the return. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_schools, but the 'one school by KAV id' framing implies lookup-by-id versus search.

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?

Implied usage: look up a single known school by its identifier. No explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'use search_schools when you don't have an id'). Adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.

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