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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds which topics the overview spans but says nothing about return shape, length, or refresh behavior. Adequate given the annotation coverage, but no extra behavioral value.

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?

A single compact sentence listing the covered topics and ending with the usage directive, which is well front-loaded. Very little waste, though the topic list reads as a bare enumeration rather than a structured statement.

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 no-param, read-only overview tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description tells the agent everything needed to select and call it correctly. Deeper content expectations for payment/contact sections are not described, but that is minor at this complexity.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for a parameter gap.

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 plainly what the tool returns: an overview of what Kódvéna is, its services, how to start a job, payment, and contact. The resource is specific and it is easy to tell apart from siblings like get_faq or how_it_works. It lacks an explicit verb ('overview' is implied only by the title), which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

"Ezzel érdemes kezdeni" explicitly tells the agent this is the recommended entry point, which is real usage guidance. However, it names no alternatives or conditions for skipping it, so it stops short of the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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