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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds only the general-vs-industry branching, no return format, length, or pagination detail.

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?

One sentence with no padding, front-loading the resource before the variant distinction. Slightly awkward phrasing owing to the parenthetical example but nothing wasted.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description states the resource and the optional scoping. Adequate; only the return shape is left unstated, which is acceptable here.

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 the single optional 'industry' parameter is already documented with the same example. The description merely echoes that it can be an industry page, adding no syntax or matching rules beyond the 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?

Names the resource (Kódvéna GYIK) and distinguishes two variants: the general FAQ and an industry-specific page's FAQ, with a concrete example. The retrieval verb is implicit in the name rather than stated, but an agent can tell what content this yields.

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?

Usage is only implied: read the general FAQ, or supply an industry identifier to get a niche FAQ. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like get_page or search, nor any exclusion.

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