kreta_evaluations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a useful scoping detail—'legfeljebb a megadott darabszámban' (at most the specified quantity)—but doesn't clarify ordering, filtering, or what 'other evaluations' encompasses. 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, tight sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the limit constraint is included without redundancy. It earns its place as a concise, structured definition.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'child', what 'other evaluations' includes, and how to choose this tool over siblings. For a tool with two parameters and several sibling tools, this minimal text is not fully complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's silence, but it only partially does. The phrase 'legfeljebb a megadott darabszámban' hints at the 'limit' parameter's purpose, yet the 'child' parameter is entirely unexplained. An agent cannot determine what value to pass for 'child' from this description.

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 clearly identifies the action ('lekérése' = retrieval) and the resource ('Jegyek és más értékelések' = grades and other evaluations), so an agent can grasp the core purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like kreta_class_averages or kreta_announced_tests, but the resource wording is fairly specific.

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 provided on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling evaluation-related tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like kreta_class_averages or kreta_announced_tests, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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