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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the result returns the full section text up to 4000 characters and a citable section URL, and the search handles Hungarian stemming. There is no contradiction with the 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 purpose question comes first, followed by query modes, then output behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the caller gets: the full section text, the URL, and a citable result in one round. It covers the two main invocation modes and the key output constraint, making it complete for a read-only search tool with well-covered parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents q, limit, and hatalyos with examples. The description reinforces the intended usage of q, but it does not meaningfully extend the meaning of limit or hatalyos 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 opening question "Melyik § szabályozza X-et?" frames a concrete use case, and the description explicitly states that the tool performs full-text search with Hungarian stemming or citation resolution in Hungarian statutes. It also defines the output shape (section text up to 4000 characters plus section URL), which clearly distinguishes it from a generic search 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?

The description gives a clear context for use: finding which section regulates a topic or resolving a statutory citation. It provides representative query formats, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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