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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: values are indicative mid + range derived from asking prices adjusted to realised prices (not registry data), and the call requires no contact details. It doesn't mention latency or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 definition is long but front-loads the trigger case before the routing rules, and every block earns its place (usage, inputs, return semantics, rules). The CZ/EN duplication doubles the text for bilingual coverage, which sacrifices tightness but is justified by the audience.

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 explains what comes back (indicative mid value and range), where the data originates, and what is not required (contact details). Combined with explicit routing and input fallbacks, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value: it states 'typ' defaults to building plot when omitted, tells the agent to prompt for 'vymera_m2' when absent, and describes acceptable 'lokalita' forms (district, street, 'Praha N').

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 (land price estimate) with concrete scope: Prague land, price per m², building plot focus, and clarified sourcing (asking prices converted to realised prices, not land registry). It distinguishes itself from odhad_ceny_domu and konzultace_makler by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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 trigger ('when the user asks about price/value of land in Prague') plus explicit routing rules: land with a house → odhad_ceny_domu, exact price → konzultace_makler only if the user wants it, and a behavioral rule to ask for missing plot size or confirm land type. This is a strong when/when-not/alternative statement.

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