TEHET

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and external-data profile. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance — the values are live and "indicative" rather than authoritative — but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown id.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity noted in other 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a tool sitting beside four more specific retrieval siblings, the description leaves the core selection question — what kind of search result this handles and why it is used instead of the dedicated price tools — entirely unanswered.

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% for the single required id parameter, so the description must compensate. It only hints that the id is a search result identifier, with no format, origin, or example, and the generic "id" must span fuel, green card, and OSCPV result types without clarification.

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?

"Fetch" largely restates the tool name, but the description does add the resource: live indicative prices or public information keyed to a search result. It fails to distinguish itself from three dedicated price siblings (get_fuel_prices, get_green_card_price, get_oscpv_price), leaving the agent unable to tell when this generic fetch is preferred over them.

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 phrase "for a search result" faintly implies this follows a search call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to any sibling. An agent facing four other retrieval tools gets no routing guidance at all.

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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results carry source attribution and dates; it says nothing about freshness, geographic coverage rules, or whether values are per-litre vs per-gallon.

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 short sentence fragment with no filler, so it is lean and the resource is front-loaded. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — several agent-relevant facts are simply absent.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an ambiguous relationship between region and countryCode, the definition leaves the agent guessing about valid input combinations. For a data-retrieval tool with an enum plus a pattern-constrained code, the description should at minimum explain how the two filters combine.

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% for two parameters (region enum europe/ukraine, countryCode pattern ^[A-Z]{2}$), and the description does not mention either. It neither explains the region/countryCode interaction nor clarifies which one takes precedence, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and the content returned (average fuel prices, source attribution, dates), so the agent knows roughly what it gets. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from sibling price tools such as get_green_card_price or get_oscpv_price, leaving the scope ambiguous against close alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of which sibling to prefer for a given price query. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the sibling list.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The word 'Indicative' usefully signals the prices are approximate rather than binding quotes, but the definition omits currency, effective date, or that startDate currently has no effect on the result.

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 efficient clause with no filler, and the price-determining factors are front-loaded. It is a noun fragment lacking a verb phrase (e.g. 'Returns...'), which slightly hurts clarity.

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 need not describe the return shape, and the enum parameters are largely self-documenting. However, for a pricing tool it omits currency, price basis, and the role of the two optional parameters, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 only 20% (startDate alone, and in Ukrainian), so the description must compensate. It names the three price-determining parameters but adds no meaning beyond their names, and never mentions vehicleYear or explains how term/territory interact with the returned price.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Green Card prices') and the three dimensions that determine them (territory, term, vehicle category), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_oscpv_price or get_fuel_prices beyond the obvious resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_oscpv_price or get_fuel_prices, and no prerequisites or context conditions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not the sole source of behavior. The word 'Indicative' does add real value by signaling the price is an estimate rather than a binding quote, but nothing is said about required permissions, rate limits, or pricing inputs.

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 zero padding — the purpose and mode appear immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably the product of under-specification rather than disciplined writing.

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 9-parameter tool with 4 required fields, enum subtypes for truck/bus/trailer, and an excluded 'enginePowerKw vs engineCapacity' choice, one sentence is far too thin, especially since there is no output schema to explain the returned estimate and no usage context.

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 only 67%, so a third of the parameters (e.g. termMonths, vehicleKind, vehicleYear) rely on the schema alone, and several conditional rules live only in schema text. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific resource (Ukrainian motor insurance prices) and a specific mode (from manual vehicle details), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it never distinguishes OSCPV from the sibling get_green_card_price, leaving the agent to infer which insurance product applies — a gap for a domain where those are different products.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. 'From manual vehicle details' faintly implies data is entered by hand rather than looked up, but no tool or condition is named, so the agent gets no routing help.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what 'availability' means, no source or freshness of the data, and no note about the open-world external dependency implied by openWorldHint.

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?

Five words is certainly short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the single fragment carries no actionable content and is not front-loaded with a verb or object. It reads like a stray label rather than a usable tool description.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a broad openWorld annotation, the description is the only place an agent could learn what is returned (product list? per-region availability? status codes?) and it supplies none of that. For a tool whose entire contract is its return semantics, this is materially incomplete.

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 schema declares zero parameters with additionalProperties=false and full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain on the parameter side. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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 is a bare noun phrase ('Public insurance product availability') with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does. It also fails to reconcile with the tool name get_service_status, which suggests status checking rather than product availability, and it gives no anchor against price-fetching siblings like get_fuel_prices or get_oscpv_price.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this tool over fetch/search, and no mention of the alternatives among the five sibling tools. The agent must guess from the name alone whether this returns service health, product catalog availability, or something else.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "read-only" adds nothing new and is essentially a restatement. Beyond that it discloses nothing about result volume, ranking, or query behavior, leaving the behavioral burden unmet for an open-world search.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification for a tool with this many siblings.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with an undocumented query parameter and no routing guidance against five siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an open-world search tool.

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% and the single "query" parameter is documented only by min/max length. The description says nothing about what the query matches against, wildcarding, or expected syntax, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a verb ("Find") and a resource ("TEHET price and public information documents"), so the general shape is inferable, but "TEHET" is undefined and the description does nothing to separate it from the sibling "fetch" or the get_* price tools. An agent must guess how a document search differs from a direct price lookup.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the five siblings, particularly "fetch", which sounds functionally overlapping. No preconditions or exclusions are given; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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