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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return artifact ('az eredmény egy kodvena.hu link') and the expected follow-up action (forward it to the user), which annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and followed by the call trigger and output handling. No filler, though it is terse for a six-parameter generator.

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, but the description compensates by stating the return value is a kodvena.hu link and that it should be handed to the user. All six parameters are documented in the schema, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, including per-enum explanations and a required/maxLength note on policy_url, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes feature concepts (categories, Consent Mode v2) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a concrete deliverable: Hungarian cookie-consent manager code with equal accept/reject, categories, and Google Consent Mode v2, plus embeddable code. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like draft_privacy_policy or create_website_mockup, though no sibling is named 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?

'A felhasználó kérésére hívd' gives generic trigger guidance (call when the user asks) and instructs what to do with the output (pass the kodvena.hu link on). It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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