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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes real behavioral context by enumerating exactly which legal elements are inspected, including the forward-looking 2026-06-19 online withdrawal requirement, but says nothing about how the page is fetched or whether dynamic/JS-rendered sites are handled.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('Egy magyar weboldal kívülről látható jogi hiányosságai') before the enumeration. The long list of legal elements earns its place as a scope specification, though it reads as a run-on rather than structured points.

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-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is checked, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, without an output schema it should indicate what the agent receives back (a findings report? a pass/fail list?) and any coverage limits such as login-protected or script-rendered pages.

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?

There is one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage ('A weboldal címe, pl. cegem.hu'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope — the externally visible legal gaps of a Hungarian website — and enumerates the exact compliance areas inspected (impresszum, ÁSZF, adatkezelési tájékoztató, cookie consent, ODR, elállási jog). The verb is implicit ('hiányosságai' implies it surfaces deficiencies rather than merely listing elements), and it is trivially distinguishable from the numeric sibling tools, but a fully explicit 'checks/reports' verb is missing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named (the siblings — afa_szamitas, ber_szamitas, etc. — are unrelated calculators, so routing is not a real risk). The phrase 'kívülről látható' implies a useful boundary (only externally observable, non-authenticated content), which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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