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 without the description. The description adds only the content-scope enumeration; it says nothing about result count, ranking, or how the limit parameter affects behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 reflects partial added context.

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 sentences, with the scope statement front-loaded ahead of the keyword-language tip. No filler or repetition of the title. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and query language but omits what results look like, how many are returned, and how ranking or the limit interact. It is adequate to invoke the tool but leaves the agent guessing about result shape.

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 67%: query and type carry descriptions, but limit does not. The description's note that Hungarian keywords work best adds semantic value for the query parameter, but it does not explain the type enum values or the limit bounds. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 (search) and a bounded resource (all public pages of kodvena.hu), then enumerates the content families covered (services, blog, free tools, terms, privacy). This lets an agent distinguish it from get_page, list_pages, and fetch, which are page-retrieval rather than keyword-search tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Magyar kulcsszavakkal a legjobb" gives a real usage hint about query language, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use versus get_page, list_pages, or fetch, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and those are the retrieval tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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