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.