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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: only differing sections are returned, with old/new text and line-by-line blocks. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core purpose and output format, and the second gives input-source context. The second sentence is slightly cryptic but still earns its place.

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 reasonably explains what the caller will receive (differing §-s, old/new text, line-by-line blocks) and how to obtain the date inputs. A minor ambiguity in the wording of the second sentence keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the schema already documents slug, tol, ig, and horgony. The description mentions where the date values come from, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb (összevetése) and resource (két időállapot of a jogszabály), and specifies the output scope: only the differing §-s with old and new text in line-by-line blocks. This distinguishes it from siblings like szakasz or valtozasok.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent that the time-state dates come from `szakasz` or `valtozasok`, which is practical guidance for preparing the inputs. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but for a read-only diff tool the context is clear enough.

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