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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond them: it returns a link, the kodvena.hu assistant already knows the summary and only asks for missing details, a human reviews before a quote is issued, and personal contact data must not be sent. This is rich, actionable behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose and the link-handoff are front-loaded, followed by the content-exclusion rule and the invocation gate. Content is dense and earns its place, though the workflow explanation is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 9 parameters, the description covers the essential unknowns: what it does, the returned link, the downstream human-review flow, and the constraint on contact data. Field-level detail for the remaining parameters is left thin, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 56%, so several parameters (notes, deadline, business_name, project_type) are undocumented. The description implies what the payload is ('az eddig összegyűjtött igényét') and usefully warns against including personal contact data, but adds no format or field-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 ('igényleadás indítása' / handing over a collected requirement) and enumerates the trigger scenarios (website, webshop, custom software, integration, fix). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like create_website_mockup or check_website without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (user wants these services from Kódvéna) and an explicit when-not / restriction: 'Csak a felhasználó kifejezett kérésére hívd'. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of the top tier, but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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