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

With readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true already declared, the description still adds real value: expected runtime (30–60s), the conditional branch on the webshop flag, a non-legal-advice disclaimer, and — with no output schema present — the return artifact (a kodvena.hu link) plus the instruction to hand it back to the user. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus runtime estimate are front-loaded. The disclaimer and callback instruction are placed afterwards, which is reasonable ordering, though the sentences are somewhat staccato.

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 16-parameter, 7-required generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: the artifact produced, where it is returned (link), how long it takes, the conditional webshop behavior, and the requirement to relay the result. Enum semantics for customers and offer_type are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.

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 all 16 parameters are already self-documented, and the description adds no per-field syntax or format detail. It conveys only coarse semantics (inputs feed the draft; webshop-related params apply only with a webshop), which matches the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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: drafting general terms and conditions (ÁSZF) from supplied data, for a webshop or service business. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling draft_privacy_policy, since the output artifact (T&C vs. privacy policy) 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 an explicit trigger condition (invoke on user request), and the description states a conditional rule for content generation (no webshop → no webshop sections). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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