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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data provenance (median CZK/m² from realised sales in the Czech land registry) and that the result is ordered, plus the discovery use-case for valid district names. It omits any note on result size limits, but the schema's pocet bound largely covers that.

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 bilingual CZ/EN split is justified for the audience and each half is front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by exclusions. There is some duplication of the ranking and 'do not use' content across languages, but no filler within a language.

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 correctly fills that gap by explaining the return shape (districts sorted by median CZK/m²) and its source, and it covers routing, scope and discovery use-cases. The only gap is absence of any note on the 1–20 result-count bound or empty-result behavior, which the schema covers only partially.

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% with two enums fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only indirectly touches parameters ('one borough' hints at obvod, the ranking framing mirrors kriterium) without adding format, default or boundary detail beyond the schema.

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 action (ranking districts) and resource (Prague districts by median CZK/m² from realised registry sales), with an explicit scope qualifier ('all Prague or one borough'). It clearly separates itself from the sibling comparison and single-locality tools by name.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' trigger (ranking most/cheapest districts, affordability, discovering valid district names) and an explicit 'Do not use when' clause routing to srovnani_ctvrti for named localities, ceny_bytu_lokalita for one locality, and odhad_ceny_bytu for a specific apartment. Both conditions and alternatives are spelled out.

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