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

Annotations declare not-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the mutation profile is already covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour: the output is a kodvena.hu link that must be handed back to the user. It does not explain why the call is non-read-only (generation/side effect) or any latency/quota constraints.

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 tight sentences with the deliverable (framed screenshot, download formats) front-loaded and the result-handling instruction second. Nothing is wasted, though writing the description in Hungarian against an English tool name and sibling set is a mild consistency cost for an agent.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is generated, the formats, and that the return value is a link to relay to the user. The only real gap is that a non-read-only, open-world operation gives no hint of cost, delay or failure modes.

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?

There is a single url parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("A weboldal címe"), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no extra meaning such as format, protocol requirements or length limits, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema already carries the load.

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 concrete verb+resource: it produces a screenshot of a webpage framed as laptop, tablet and phone, with PNG/JPG/WebP download. That is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close neighbours like create_website_mockup, 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?

"A felhasználó kérésére hívd" tells the agent to invoke it when the user asks, which is a usable trigger condition. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool (e.g. create_website_mockup), so usage remains 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.