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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that: ~30-60 sec runtime, that it returns the full text plus a link valid 24 hours, and a disclaimer that it is a draft and not legal advice. It omits auth/permission requirements, but the operational behavioral context is strong and consistent with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then latency, output shape, disclaimer, and calling instruction. Four short sentences, all earning their place; it is only marginally longer than strictly necessary.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return value (full text plus a 24h link) and the runtime. With annotations and full schema coverage carrying the rest, little is missing, though it could note that the output link must be retrieved before expiry.

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 every one of the 17 parameters is already documented with label and required/optional status. The description only says input comes 'from the given data' generically and adds no syntax or format nuances beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: producing a GDPR-compliant privacy policy draft ('adatkezelési tájékoztató vázlata') for a website from supplied data. This is clearly distinct from the closest sibling draft_terms, since the artifact generated is a privacy notice rather than terms of service. An agent can identify the tool's output without opening the schema.

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?

It states 'A felhasználó kérésére hívd' (call on user request), which gives a minimal triggering condition, and it describes the follow-up ('the result is a kodvena.hu link, pass it to the user'). However, it offers no exclusions, no comparison to alternatives such as draft_terms, and no prerequisites, leaving usage largely implied.

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