kreta_announcements

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats the retrieval nature without adding behavioral detail. It does not mention pagination, default limit behavior, open-world caveats, or authentication needs, so it adds no transparency beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, so it is efficient and easy to scan. It loses a point because it lacks any structural elements such as scoping notes or parameter hints that would make the one-liner more informative to an agent.

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 an output schema present and strong annotations, the safety profile is covered, but the tool has two optional parameters whose meaning is entirely unexplained. The description gives no context for how to use 'child' or 'limit', so an agent cannot reliably construct a well-formed request beyond calling with all defaults.

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 explain either parameter. 'child' and 'limit' are left completely undefined, so an agent cannot know what 'child' refers to (e.g., a student identifier filter) or how the default limit of 100 behaves. The description was the only remaining source of parameter meaning and it provides none.

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 verb-like action ('lekérése' – retrieval) and a clear resource ('KRÉTA faliújság-elemei' – KRÉTA bulletin-board elements), which maps directly to the tool name. This resource is distinct from the sibling tools (evaluations, absences, timetable, etc.), so an agent can identify what this tool is for.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many sibling kreta_* tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any context condition (e.g., 'use kreta_announced_tests for tests'). An agent can only infer usage from the name.

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