kreta_timetable_item

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 fully covered. The description adds only that the UID originates from a list call and the output schema covers return values. It adds modest context but no deeper behavioral disclosure (auth requirements, error behavior), which is acceptable given the strong 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?

A single Hungarian sentence that states the purpose without redundancy, with the key constraint (UID from the list) included. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it is also the only substantive content in the 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the definition is close to adequate. The main gaps are the unexplained 'child' parameter and routing to sibling kreta_timetable being implicit rather than explicit, which prevents full completeness.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It does clarify that lesson_uid is a UID obtained from a prior list call, adding value beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. However, the optional 'child' parameter (string or null, default null) is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving real ambiguity.

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 specific verb ('lekérése' – retrieval), a specific resource (órarendi elem részletei – timetable item details), and the lookup mechanism (UID from the list). This implicitly differentiates it from sibling kreta_timetable, which is the source of the list. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling, 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?

The phrase 'a listából kapott UID alapján' (based on the UID received from the list) implies a two-step flow: first call kreta_timetable to get the list of UIDs, then call this tool for item details. However, no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or exclusions are given, so the usage is implied rather than stated.

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