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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that the rate tracks the live MNB base rate and is applied semi-annually, which explains the open-world behavior, but it says nothing about the 40 EUR cost item's currency handling or how the live rate is obtained.

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 governing rule and compresses the rate structure without filler. It is long for one sentence but every clause carries substantive rule 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g. the interest amount in HUF and whether the fixed cost lump sum is included). The legal rule set is described well, but the return contract and date-handling behavior are left unstated for a four-parameter calculation tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description does enrich one parameter by mapping 'vállalkozások között' to the +8 percentage-point rule, but it adds no interpretation guidance for osszeg, esedekesseg or fizetes_napja.

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 the specific computation (late-payment interest under the Ptk.) and the exact rate rules it applies, which is far more informative than the bare name 'kesedelmi_kamat'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like afa_szamitas or ber_szamitas, though those are plainly different domains.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that a late payment actually occurred), and no exclusions. The intended scenario is only implied by the domain vocabulary.

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