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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: generation takes 1–2 minutes and is subject to a strict daily quota, and the output is a kodvena.hu link to pass on — details no structured field provides.

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 dense sentences that front-load the purpose, then latency/quota, then usage trigger and result handling. Nothing is redundant and there is 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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return value (a link) and the latency/quota constraint. It omits any auth or permission requirements and what happens when the daily quota is exhausted, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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% and the schema documents every parameter, including enum values and defaults (e.g., style default 'modern', devices default 'all'). The description only restates company/industry/style, adding no meaning beyond the schema, 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: an AI-generated website mockup shown on laptop, tablet and mobile, derived from company, industry and style. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_device_preview, create_ai_video or compare_competitors without needing to name them.

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 a trigger condition (call when the user asks for it) and tells the agent to hand the resulting link back to the user. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance against related mockup/preview tools.

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