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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so 'Csak olvas' only restates them. The description does add real context beyond that: it will not query Google's pages, meaning results derive from the supplied site and answers, and it returns a score based on the answered profile-status flags.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it checks, what it returns, what it does not do. The checked items and the read-only limitation are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description signals the return shape (item-level match findings plus a score from the answers). With read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the only minor gap is how the score is computed or what the response looks like in detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents business_name, website, city, phone and the boolean answers object. The description only hints at the role of answers (a score derived from profile-status responses) and adds no matching rules or formatting guidance for the name/city/phone comparison, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking consistency between the Google Business Profile (Google Maps) and the website, enumerating the checked items (name, address, phone, LocalBusiness data, map, review link). A reader knows exactly what the tool does, though it does not name a sibling such as check_website for the website-only case, leaving differentiation implicit.

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 audit scenario is implied (profile/website consistency with a status score), and the sentence 'A Google oldalait nem kérdezi le' rules out a behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives like check_website or compare_competitors.

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