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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get ... full official data' implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, and it discloses the shape of returned data, but there is no mention of permissions, error behavior when an id is unknown, or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and identifier first, then the payload. It is dense and information-rich without filler, though the run-on parenthetical list of return categories is slightly heavy.

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 must describe returns, and it enumerates the main data categories (érettségi results, admissions, competency scores vs averages). For a one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, missing only behavioral notes.

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 must compensate, and it does: it explains that the id is the Hungarian 'OM azonosító' and that an optional '-site' suffix is accepted. That is meaningful format guidance beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 ('Full official data for one secondary school by its id') and enumerates the data scope (érettségi results, admissions, competency scores). The singular 'one secondary school by its id' implicitly distinguishes it from search_schools and compare_schools.

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: this is the detail fetch for a known school id, presumably after search_schools. However, it never states when to use it versus compare_schools or search_schools, nor any prerequisites such as where the id comes from.

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