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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes real value by explaining the payload shape (website and admin side by side), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what happens with an unmatched industry filter.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource name and then the enumeration; the filtering note sits at the end where it belongs. Slightly dense parenthetical listing, but no wasted clause.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only the expected cardinality and result layout are left implicit, which is a minor omission 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is optional with its own example (fodrász, pizzéria). The phrase "Szűrhető szakmára" corroborates the schema but adds no syntax, matching behaviour, or fallback semantics beyond it – 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?

"A Kódvéna kipróbálható, élő demói" names a concrete resource and enumerates the demo types (időpontfoglalás, szállás, órarend, ételrendelés, webshop, ajánlatkérés), plus notes the website/admin pairing. It is unmistakable what an agent gets back, though it never names a contrasting sibling the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

"Szűrhető szakmára" implies the filter use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of neighbouring tools such as check_website or create_website_mockup that an agent might confuse with a live demo listing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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