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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the data source is realized sales from the Czech land registry and the metric is median CZK/m². It does not describe response format in detail, but that is less critical given the simple output.

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 primary Czech and English sentences are front-loaded and compact, stating the core behavior immediately. The keyword lists add redundancy and length, but they do not obscure the essential information or make the description unwieldy.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the input scope, the output metric, and the data source. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly says what is returned (median CZK/m²), which reduces ambiguity.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples for lokalita and enum/default for jazyk. The description mostly restates the locality concept and adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 opens with the specific verb 'Vrátí' (returns) and clearly names the resource: median price CZK/m² for a Prague district, borough, or street from realized land-registry sales. This directly distinguishes it from siblings like odhad_ceny_bytu (estimate) or srovnani_ctvrti (comparison).

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: retrieving realized median prices per m² for a specified Prague locality. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope restriction to Prague and realized sales provides clear contextual guidance.

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