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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: no contact details required, results are asking prices converted to realised prices anchored to ČSÚ data (not the land registry), and that condition/floor/orientation are ignored. Return format is sketched (mid value + range), though no pagination/precision caveats.

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?

Bilingual duplication doubles length, but each section is front-loaded and purposeful: use-case, inputs, output, then rules and routing. No filler sentences, though the CS/EN mirroring is somewhat redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (indicative mid value and range, source methodology). Prerequisites, exclusions, and sibling routing are all present; nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with formats, ranges and examples already documented for all four parameters. The description restates the input trio (locality, usable area, plot size) and notes locality accepts čtvrť/ulice/'Praha N' with optional diacritics, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource (estimate the price of a family house in Prague) with scope limits and names the siblings it is not (odhad_ceny_bytu, odhad_ceny_pozemku). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use, exclusion routing to the two sibling estimators, a rule to ask for missing usable area/plot, and guidance on when konzultace_makler is warranted (only if the user wants it). Also states which attributes not to ask for.

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