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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: Hungarian stemming, a 4000-character truncation on returned § text, and the dual search/resolution mode. The truncation limit is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs to avoid assuming full-text output.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the use-case hook is front-loaded, followed by mechanism and output shape. Every clause 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 correctly covers the return shape (§ text up to 4000 chars + URL) and the end-to-end workflow ('citable in one round'). Parameters are fully documented in the schema and safety in annotations. Missing only minor items — no-result behavior, pagination, and sibling disambiguation — none of which block a correct first call.

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% with rich examples for q (free-text and citation formats) plus defaults for limit and hatalyos, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the stemming nuance for how q is processed and the output cap, which are marginal to parameter semantics — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: full-text search of Hungarian laws with stemming, plus citation/reference resolution, returning the full § text and URL. The opening question 'Melyik § szabályozza X-et?' and the title make the scope (Hungarian legislation) unmistakable. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' (same meaning) or 'szakasz' (section retrieval), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 frames a clear use case — 'Which § regulates X?' — and enumerates both accepted input modes (free text vs. citation like 'Fftv. 18. §'), which is solid contextual guidance. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among the siblings, so exclusions are absent.

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