kreta_announced_tests

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with those, so there is no contradiction. It adds modest behavioral context by limiting the result set to announced assessments over a date range, but it does not disclose limit handling, child semantics, or date format.

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 clear sentence with no fluff, and the main object ('announced tests/assessments') is front-loaded. It could contain more detail, but the conciseness itself is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 strong annotations cover return shape and safety, but the 0% parameter coverage and absence of usage guidance mean an agent does not have enough context to confidently supply 'child' or 'limit' or to choose this tool among its siblings. It is minimally viable only for a straightforward read.

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 has 0% per-parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that start_date and end_date form a date range, but it leaves 'child' and 'limit' entirely unexplained, making half of the parameters ambiguous.

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 states a clear action ('lekérése' – retrieval) and a specific resource ('bejelentett dolgozatok és számonkérések' – announced tests and assessments), plus a date-range scope. This helps distinguish it from sibling tools like kreta_evaluations or kreta_announcements, though it does not explicitly name 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of its siblings. There are no exclusions, no mention of related tools, and no conditions or prerequisites, so an agent is left to infer selection from the name and short description.

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