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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: 20–60 second generation time, an async-style result where the returned link remains valid even if generation hasn't finished, LLM backing, and a strict daily quota. It stops short of saying what happens when the quota is exhausted or what the response contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the kind list, then compressed into short clauses about timing, link validity and quota. The type enumeration partially duplicates the `kind` enum, and 'Szigorú napi keret' is asserted without any actionable detail, but overall there is little waste.

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 12-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it produces, per-format limits, latency, result delivery via link, and quota. The main gap is that it never says which parameters matter for which `kind`, nor what failure looks like when the daily quota runs out.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: per-format character constraints (Google Ads headlines ≤30 and descriptions ≤90 characters, Google Business Profile description ≤750 characters) that an agent cannot see in the enum. It does not explain the kind-conditional relevance of parameters like `keyword`, `details` or `length_seconds`, leaving some semantics to the schema.

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?

The description states a concrete verb (generate Hungarian text with an LLM) and enumerates the exact content types the tool produces — job ad, cover letter, real estate ad, Facebook ad, Instagram post, TikTok script, Google Ads, product description, SEO text, hashtags, Google Business Profile description. That enumeration maps directly onto the `kind` enum and clearly separates it from sibling drafting tools such as draft_contract or generate_meta_tags.

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?

Usage is only implied: the listed content types tell an agent which requests fit, and 'A felhasználó kérésére hívd' ('call at the user's request') is close to vacuous as routing guidance. There is no explicit when-not and no naming of alternatives (e.g. draft_contract for contracts, generate_meta_tags for meta tags), so the agent must infer boundaries from the kind list.

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