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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — the return value is an id shaped for `fetch` — which matters because there is no output schema. No contradiction exists: a read-only search is consistent 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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler: purpose first, workflow linkage second. Every word earns its place and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is minimally complex (one required param, no enums, no nesting), annotations carry the safety profile, and the description supplies the critical integration detail (result id feeds `fetch`). The notable gap is absence of differentiation from the `kereses` sibling, which leaves the tool's unique role slightly underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only does so implicitly: by stating the tool searches Hungarian laws, an agent can infer `query` holds the search text, but the description never explicitly defines the parameter's semantics, expected language, or matching behavior. Adequate for one obvious parameter, but not explicit.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Keresés a magyar törvényekben' (search in Hungarian laws), and adds a workflow fact by stating its result id is consumed by `fetch`. It stops short of 5 because the sibling `kereses` is almost certainly the same function in Hungarian, and nothing in the description separates `search` from it.

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 phrase 'az eredmény id-jét a fetch várja' communicates how the tool fits into a sequence (search first, then pass the id to fetch), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to any alternative despite the ambiguous `kereses` sibling.

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