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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds concrete behavioral details: the agent responds within 24 hours, GDPR consent is required, and there is a rate limit of 5 requests/hour. These are meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 bilingual sentences cover the target, action, response time, consent requirement, and rate limit without filler. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 request-submission tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it correctly: what it does, who it contacts, when a response is expected, and what constraints apply. Required parameter details are fully covered by the schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description contributes global constraints like consent and rate limit, but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Odešle žádost / Sends a consultation request') and identifies the resource (Reality Style agent Petr Kubačka, Prague). It clearly distinguishes this action-oriented tool from the sibling price/comparison 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 clearly signals its use case: submitting a request for a personal consultation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all analysis tools, so the intended context is unambiguous.

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