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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: results are ordered newest first, the specific fields returned, and a per-record credit cost ('1 point per returned record'). It omits any mention of read-only safety, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope before the identifier format and returned fields. It is well organized with no filler, though the run-on structure packs return-field enumeration and cost into the same sentence.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (document number, type, description, period, filing dates, pages, link) plus ordering and cost. Combined with full schema coverage on inputs, an agent has nearly everything needed, though permissions/pagination behavior is unstated.

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 all three parameters (company, max_items, start_page) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 'IČO or registry URL' input format but adds no new syntax, format, or pagination detail beyond the schema; 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 (List) and resource (documents filed in the Czech Republic Collection of Documents) with the exact source registry (Justice.cz) and the identifier type accepted. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_cz_companies (company data) and other-country filings tools.

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 implies the use case (retrieve filings for one company) and names the accepted inputs, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never contrasts with run_cz_companies or run_cz_companies_search, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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