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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: output is restricted to differing sections and presented as old/new text in line-by-line blocks, which helps the agent anticipate the response shape.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and adds only the essential source guidance for dates. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output format. It could mention ordering, empty-result behavior, or validation constraints, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance by telling the agent that the time-state dates come from `szakasz` or `valtozasok`, linking parameter values to sibling tools. This is value beyond the schema's basic date format descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: comparing two time states of a law and returning only differing sections with old and new text in line-by-line blocks. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fetch or szakasz by emphasizing the diff-focused output.

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 description gives clear context on how to obtain the date inputs ('Az időállapotok napjait a `szakasz` (§ nélkül) vagy a `valtozasok` adja'), pointing to sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the use case is reasonably clear.

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