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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain scope (which content areas are offered) but says nothing about the return shape or what invoking it produces — a real gap for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the service enumeration that matters most, and the trigger condition placed last. The first sentence is a long run-on list of seven items, but each item conveys scope rather than filler, so it stays within acceptable bounds.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies the offering list and the invocation trigger, which is close to sufficient. The missing piece is any hint of what the tool returns (link, catalog, generated text), which is the main remaining uncertainty for the agent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema description coverage is 100% regardless, and no parameter-level detail is needed.

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 identifies the resource (PromNET's free tools and services) by enumerating its contents, but supplies no action verb — it reads as marketing copy ('Mit kínál a PromNET...') rather than stating what invoking the tool does. An agent can infer it is an informational/overview resource, and the enumeration partly separates it from calculation siblings, but the operation itself remains vague.

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?

The second sentence gives an explicit trigger: call it when the user needs ÁSZF, privacy notice, imprint, cookie banner, cancellation button, or a simple company website. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions — notably it never points to the jogi_ellenorzes sibling, which overlaps with the legal-document use case.

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