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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data provenance (official KIR data), the observation window (last 3 years), and — most importantly — that results are ranked rather than arbitrarily ordered. It does not mention read-only nature or pagination/limit behavior, but 'search' plus the ranking note covers the operationally relevant traits.

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 tight sentence with the resource and ranking criterion front-loaded and filters trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the density of parenthetical type names makes it slightly heavy for one sentence.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly: what is searched, how results are ordered, and what can be filtered. The shape of returned records (name, city, pass share) is left implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

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 by naming five of the six parameters semantically (city, county, school type, minimum advanced-level share, name/query). It adds the ranking notion that no parameter captures. The 'limit' parameter is left unexplained in prose, but it has a default and maximum 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 (search), a well-scoped resource (Hungarian secondary schools, with the three school types named), and the ranking criterion (share of students passing advanced-level érettségi). This clearly distinguishes it from get_school (single lookup), compare_schools (comparison) and list_cities (enumeration).

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 description enumerates the available filter dimensions (city, county, type, minimum share, name), which implies when to reach for this tool, but it never states when to prefer a sibling like compare_schools or get_school. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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