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.