kreta_absences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result includes certification status, but otherwise discloses no deeper behavior such as authentication requirements or data scoping. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and target resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only query tool.

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 output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but the description leaves key invocation context undefined: how to select a child, what a null child means, and whether limit applies per child or overall. Given the low parameter documentation, an agent would need to guess to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either 'child' or 'limit'. The schema only provides names, types, and defaults, not meaning: it is unclear what 'child' should contain, what null means, or how 'limit' affects results. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 Hungarian description translates to 'Retrieval of absences and their certification status', naming a specific operation (lekérése/retrieval) and a specific resource (absences). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which cover absences.

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 when to use the tool: whenever absence records or their certification status are needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as whether a login or a selected child is required, and it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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