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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the no-section case (returns metadata, time-state list, TOC), which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, pagination), so it is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the secondary case is stated in the second sentence. No redundant words; every phrase adds information.

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 simple and the description covers the two modes of operation (with and without §), the date parameter, and the alternative ways to specify a section. It mentions the output (section text or metadata/TOC) even without an output schema. Minor omissions like error cases or pagination do not undermine completeness for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 each parameter (slug, datum, horgony, paragrafus) is documented. The description adds the clarification that horgony and paragrafus are alternatives ('vagy'), which is a slight semantic addition. It does not compensate for any gaps, but there are none, so a baseline of 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 action: retrieving a § (section) of a regulation by anchor or number, optionally with text in effect on a given date. It also clarifies the fallback behavior (metadata, time states, TOC) when no § is given, and explicitly notes it does not return the full text, distinguishing it from likely sibling tools like fetch.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to get a specific section's text at a point in time, or to get metadata/TOC without sections. It implicitly differentiates from full-text retrieval by saying 'nem a teljes szöveget', though it does not name specific sibling tools or give explicit exclusions.

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