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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries full burden. It does disclose valuable behavioral context — results are ranked, the index scale is 0-10 with 5 as the national average, and scores derive from KAV exam pass rates (VSM) and lesson hours (ÁKÓ). It does not disclose return shape, pagination, how missing filters are handled, or the effect of the default limit.

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 resource and the ranking semantics, then lists filters. Every clause carries information, though packing scoring methodology and filters into one sentence makes it slightly hard to scan.

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, zero-required search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the ranking domain and filters well but leaves gaps: no mention of how results are returned, whether an empty result set is possible, sorting beyond the index, or the default/limit behavior.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the score scale and meaning behind min_score, gives example values for city and district, and enumerates valid category codes (B, A, AM, C) that the schema itself leaves as an unconstrained default string. The limit parameter remains unexplained.

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 driving schools) plus the ranking basis (JogsiMérleg index). It is clearly a discovery/ranking tool, implicitly distinct from get_school (single lookup) and compare_schools, but it never explicitly names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Provides the filterable dimensions (city, district, category, min_score) with example values, which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer compare_schools or get_school over this search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted.

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