Gumiidő – gumicsere-sürgősség

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool is refreshed several times daily (so results are current, no caching tricks needed) and it returns a score, a grade and a written justification rather than a raw number. It stops short of describing why openWorldHint is false given the reliance on forecast data, or what happens when a settlement is ambiguous.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it computes and for whom, what it returns, then the freshness note. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler, and the season definitions are packed parenthetically rather than sprawling into their own sentences.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials, including the return shape that no output schema supplies. The main residual gap is settlement-name ambiguity handling, which matters since ékezet-sensitive matching against Hungarian place names can plausibly miss.

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 100%, so both parameters (telepules and the optional datum) are fully documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the 14-day default of today. The description adds only the seasonal framing (September–February vs March–August), which colors how the urgency score should be read but does not extend parameter meaning further. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource: it computes tire-change urgency for one Hungarian settlement from the local 14-day forecast, returning a 0–100 score, a grade and reasoning. That is clearly distinct from a settlement lookup or national summary, though the description never names the siblings (orszagos_osszesito, telepules_kereses, teligumi_szabalyok) to make the boundary explicit.

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 only implied: the tool is scoped to a single settlement and the season window is spelled out, which hints at when the result is meaningful. There is no explicit 'use this instead of teligumi_szabalyok when…' statement, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do for a non-Hungarian location.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context that the result is today's snapshot and includes both grade counts and largest-city results, but does not explain freshness guarantees, aggregation thresholds, or what a 'grade' means.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys scope, timeframe, and the two result dimensions.

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 zero-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description gives enough shape to know that the response contains per-grade city counts and largest-city results. It could be stronger by clarifying the grade categories or what counts as a 'largest city', but the core return content is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, and it correctly focuses on the output scope instead.

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?

The description states a specific aggregate resource: tire-change urgency across Hungary's 274 cities, with counts per grade and results for the largest cities. It is clear enough to distinguish a national summary from a per-settlement lookup, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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 by the national aggregate framing: an agent can infer this is for an overview rather than a single-city lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance against siblings such as gumicsere_surgosseg or telepules_kereses.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description usefully adds that results map settlements to a forecast city page, but says nothing about matching behavior with multiple or partial hits, or result limits — the main behavioral uncertainty for a search tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it ends with the highest-value detail (the forecast-page mapping). Nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it takes in and, unusually, what it gives back. It falls short only on ambiguity handling (multiple matches, empty results), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Településnév vagy annak eleje', so prefix matching is already conveyed structurally. The description adds no syntax, casing, or accent-handling guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (keres) and resource (magyar települések) plus the distinctive output: which city page's forecast applies. Siblings (gumicsere_surgosseg, orszagos_osszesito, teligumi_szabalyok) do not overlap with settlement lookup, so the lack of explicit sibling comparison is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 implies the lookup use case (find settlements by name to resolve the relevant forecast page) but never states when to pick this tool versus going straight to a forecast tool, nor what to do with the returned mapping. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds that answers come with sources and extend to neighboring countries, which is useful scope context, but it says nothing about depth, currency of the rules, or how the material is presented.

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 with the core subject first and the covered topics in parentheses; dense but free of filler. It could have been split to separate Hungarian rules from the neighboring-country coverage, which is the only structural weakness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate map of its content scope. The remaining gap is the lack of any statement about result form or how the two halves (domestic rules vs. neighboring countries) relate, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to document and the baseline of 4 would normally apply. However, the description adds no framing about the absence of filtering (e.g., that it cannot be narrowed to a specific country or year), so it does not fully exploit the parameter dimension; a 3 reflects that it neither helps nor misleads.

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?

The description names the resource precisely (Hungarian winter-tire rules and recommendations) and enumerates the covered subtopics: obligation, snow chains, tread depth, the 7-degree rule, sources, and neighboring countries' regulations. An agent can tell it is an informational/regulatory lookup, but the sentence never distinguishes it from siblings such as orszagos_osszesito or gumicsere_surgosseg.

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 only implied: the enumerated topics suggest when the tool is relevant (a question about winter-tire law or cross-border rules). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to the sibling tools that cover urgency or settlement lookup.

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