TEHET

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the data is 'live', which hints at freshness but says nothing about rate limits, caching, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid/expired search-result 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. It would be sharper if the disjunction ('prices or public information') were resolved, but there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is low complexity (one required param, read-only, output schema present so return values need no explanation). Still, the description leaves open what data is actually returned and how it relates to the price-specific sibling tools, which an agent needs in order to choose correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden but only partially compensates: it clarifies that 'id' is the identifier of a search result. It gives no format, length, or validity guidance beyond the schema's min/max length constraints.

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 pairs a generic verb ('Fetch') with a disjunctive object ('live indicative prices or public information'), leaving the actual resource ambiguous. The title mentions a 'TEHET price document', but the description itself does not commit to one resource and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_fuel_prices, get_green_card_price, 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?

'for a search result' implicitly tells the agent this is a follow-up call whose id comes from the search tool, which is usable guidance. However, it names no alternative and gives no condition for choosing this over the specific price getters in the sibling set.

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 the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds limited extra value by noting results carry source attribution and dates, but says nothing about update cadence, freshness, or geographic coverage behavior. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 fits.

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 no padding, and the most informative content (source attribution, dates) is up front. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full statement of behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parameters, an enum plus default, and no output schema, the description should clarify how region and countryCode interact and what geographic granularity is returned. It only gestures at return content ('source attribution and dates') and leaves all parameter behavior unstated, which is inadequate for a filtering-based 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 neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what 'region' means, that it defaults to 'europe' vs 'ukraine', or how countryCode relates to region, yet geographic scoping is the core behavior of this 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?

Names a specific resource ('fuel prices') with meaningful qualifiers ('average', 'source attribution and dates'), which separates it from sibling price tools like get_green_card_price and get_oscpv_price. The operation verb ('get') is only implied, and it does not explicitly state how it differs from those siblings, 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. It never mentions that region/countryCode scoping selects this tool over the other price endpoints, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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 one useful behavioral nuance — that prices are 'indicative' rather than binding quotes — but says nothing about response format, currency, or how invalid/edge inputs behave.

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. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 and low schema coverage, the description carries full burden and falls short: it never says what the return value looks like (single price, per-category list), in what currency, or what startDate/vehicleYear do. For an open-world pricing lookup this is a notable 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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Its parameter mention ('territory, term and vehicle category') merely restates three parameter names, offering no enum values, formats or meaning, and it ignores startDate and vehicleYear entirely — including that startDate is validated but does not currently affect the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Green Card prices') and names the three scoping dimensions (territory, term, vehicle category), which distinguishes it from get_fuel_prices, get_oscpv_price and get_service_status. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 other pricing tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that territory/term/vehicleCategory must be supplied). The single qualifier 'Indicative' hints the output is an estimate, but no usage guidance is provided.

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 the safety profile is covered. The word 'Indicative' usefully signals these are estimates rather than binding quotes, but there is no mention of auth, rate limits, or how the conditional parameter rules gate a 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 short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but at this length for a 9-parameter tool with interdependent conditional fields it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

Nine parameters, four required, three enums and several conditional rules, with no output schema and no return-value or error guidance in the description. An agent cannot tell from the text what a valid call produces or which field combinations are legal.

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 contributes zero parameter information; everything meaningful (the vehicleType requirement for truck/bus/trailer and its prohibition for car/moto, the enginePowerKw-vs-engineCapacity exclusivity, the date-range constraint on startDate) lives only in the schema, and several parameters carry no schema description at all.

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+resource: 'Indicative Ukrainian motor insurance prices' for OSCPV, which reads distinctly from the sibling get_green_card_price. 'from manual vehicle details' clarifies the input mode, but the description never explicitly names the alternative or pricing context, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, no mention of get_green_card_price or get_fuel_prices as alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus the other insurance/pricing sibling.

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 the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on caching, freshness, auth requirements, or what 'status' means, despite the lower bar set by the annotations.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single fragment that never completes a thought. Brevity here costs the agent information without saving it anything meaningful.

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, no-output-schema tool the description still needs to say what a 'status' response contains and when it applies. It stops at a topic label, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a health check or an availability lookup.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 and no statement of what is actually returned or checked. It gestures at the subject matter (insurance product availability) but does not say whether this reports service health, product catalog availability, or an outage status, so it cannot be distinguished from the sibling price/availability tools.

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 exclusion criteria, and no mention of the siblings (fetch, search, get_oscpv_price, etc.) that also surface availability or pricing. An agent has nothing to decide between this and the other tools with.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'read-only' simply restates that. The only extra signal is that results are 'public information documents', which is thin for a search tool whose matching behavior, coverage and result count are undisclosed.

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 comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is query semantics and differentiation from the price-specific siblings, leaving the definition just barely adequate for a one-parameter 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?

The single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no hint about expected syntax, whether it is a keyword or natural-language query, or how matching works. With one undocumented required parameter, the description 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 verb 'Find' plus the resource 'TEHET price and public information documents' states a recognizable purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'fetch' or the specific price getters (get_fuel_prices, get_green_card_price), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when a generic search beats a targeted getter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. With 'fetch' and several targeted price getters among its siblings, the absence of any routing rule ('use this for free-text lookups; use get_fuel_prices for a specific series') leaves selection entirely to inference.

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