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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source is the Czech land registry with realised sales, not advertisements, and the result is explicitly not an official expert valuation. This helps an agent understand the epistemic status of the result without contradicting any annotation.

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 core description is well structured and front-loaded with the main behavior, followed by a clear 'not an official valuation' caveat. However, the bilingual CZ/EN duplication and the keyword lists repeat much of the same information, so it is not as concise as it could be for an agent-facing definition.

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 estimation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it computes, the input variables, the data source, and the fact that it is not an official valuation. It does not specify the exact return format, but the 'indicative price range' and 'price per m²' language conveys the core output sufficiently.

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 already have useful documentation. The description reinforces the key inputs (Prague district and area in m²) but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Vypočítá orientační cenové rozpětí pro byt' / 'Computes an indicative price range for a Prague apartment by district and area.' It also clearly distinguishes the result from an official valuation ('Není znalecký posudek'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from its siblings such as ceny_bytu_lokalita or srovnani_ctvrti, so it misses the top distinction criterion.

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 when the tool is appropriate: it provides an approximate, non-authoritative price estimate from realised land-registry sales rather than listings. It also explicitly warns it is not an official valuation, which is a useful when-not. However, it gives no alternative tool names or explicit conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings, leaving the usage guidance largely implicit.

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