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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation takes a few minutes and the output is a kodvena.hu link the agent should hand back to the user. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false, since a link-producing comparison is a generated artifact rather than a plain read.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first defines the operation and its scope, the second gives the trigger and what to do with the result. Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses that the result is a kodvena.hu link to pass to the user, and warns about the multi-minute runtime. It is close to complete for a two-parameter tool, though it omits any mention of failure cases or what happens if a URL is invalid.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (own_url, competitors) are already documented, including the 1–3 array bound. The description restates the competitor count and the 'same criteria' framing but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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: comparing the user's own website against 1–3 competitors on the same criteria. It clearly implies a multi-site comparison, which distinguishes it in spirit from single-site siblings like check_website, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Provides one triggering condition, 'call it at the user's request' (A felhasználó kérésére hívd), which is implied usage rather than a real decision rule. It gives no when-not guidance and does not point to check_website for single-site checks.

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