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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('1 point per returned record') and the returned fields, which is real added value, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and data source, followed by the returned fields and cost. No filler; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's listing of returned fields (name, IČO, status, address, link) is valuable and largely compensates. Parameter coverage is complete via the schema; only pagination guidance is absent, which is a minor gap for a search 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 keyword, status, max_items, and start_page are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the name query ('by company name') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search), the exact resource (Czech Republic commercial register / Justice.cz), the query field (company name), and the returned fields. It clearly identifies what it does, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_cz_companies or run_cz_company_filings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'by company name' implies the intended input and use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no reference to the alternatives (run_cz_companies, run_cz_company_filings) that share this namespace. Usage is only inferable.

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