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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: one call is enough per notification, the cursor should be set to an initial timestamp and then to the response's 'kovetkezo_felveve_utan' field, and filters behave differently for live monitoring vs historical queries. No contradiction.

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 dense but not bloated; it front-loads the core purpose and organizes caller guidance by use case. The long second sentence packs several related details, but each clause contributes.

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 helps by naming the response shape ('érintett §-ok régi/új szövegével') and the next-cursor field. It lacks a full return-value description and explicit pagination semantics, but for an optional-parameter list tool the key invocation details are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining how parameters combine: 'felveve_utan' as a pagination cursor over time, q for title word-start filtering, and since/until/slugs for historical lookups. It does not redefine parameter formats but clarifies intended usage.

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 the operation precisely: 'Hatályba lépett módosítások listája az érintett §-ok régi/új szövegével' – a list of enacted amendments with old/new text of affected sections. It is clearly a query/list operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'diff' or 'kereses'.

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 gives two explicit usage modes: monitoring with the 'felveve_utan' cursor plus q/slugs filtering, and historical questions using since/until/slugs. This is clear contextual guidance, though it never names alternatives or states when not to use the tool.

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