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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior — Hungarian public holidays and shifted workdays are included, and it can also return a year's holidays — which is useful context. It does not explain output format or how the two modes are selected, so a 3 is apt.

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 resource and both operations, with no filler or restatement of the title. It is information-dense rather than wasteful, though the packed Hungarian clause structure makes it slightly harder to scan quickly.

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 3-parameter, single-output-less read-only calculator with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers both operating modes and the holiday/shifted-workday semantics that an agent could not infer elsewhere. Only the return shape and mode-selection rules are unstated, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 three parameters (mettol, meddig, munkanap_szam) are already documented in the schema. The description mirrors the same two-mode framing (interval vs. N-workday offset) without adding format, default, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (Munkanapok) and two concrete operations: counting workdays between two dates and finding the N-th workday (deadline) from a date, including holidays and shifted workdays. An agent immediately knows the domain and both modes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling szabadsag (vacation) 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?

Usage is implied by the two described modes — 'határidő' signals deadline computation, date-interval counting signals duration queries — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to or away from siblings. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer which mode the caller wants.

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