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

With annotations already declaring openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent, the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the return shape ("az eredmény egy kodvena.hu link") — valuable since there is no output schema. However, it never explains why a search operation is flagged readOnlyHint=false, leaving an inconsistency the agent cannot resolve.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage/return instructions following; no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, a usage trigger and the return format, which is a reasonable floor. It still omits whether results are a single suggestion or a list, how pricing is conveyed, and any reconciliation of the non-read-only annotation.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, tlds and keywords are all documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description echoes the query/TLD inputs (".hu, .com, .eu stb.") but adds no format, limit or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ("Szabad domainnevek keresése") plus scope (company name/keywords, TLDs like .hu/.com/.eu, with pricing). An agent can immediately tell this is a domain-availability search, distinct from check_website or search. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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?

It gives one trigger condition: "A felhasználó kérésére hívd" (call it at the user's request). That is implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not guidance, and it names no alternative tool or exclusion. Adequate but thin.

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