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 that the data comes from the land registry and that it returns a ranking, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details like whether the ranking is based on realized sales or current listings, or any rate limits or data freshness. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is bilingual and includes keywords, which adds length but serves a clear purpose for search/discoverability. The core functional sentence is front-loaded in both languages, and the keywords are clearly separated. It is slightly longer than necessary but well-structured and every part earns its place.

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 read-only ranking tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the source (land registry), the metric (median price), and the available filters. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return format or whether the ranking includes additional data like price per m², but the schema and annotations cover the essentials.

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 all four parameters. The description adds the context that the ranking is by median price and that filtering is by borough, which aligns with the parameters. It does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a ranking of Prague districts by median apartment price from the land registry, with a specific verb ('Vrátí'/'Returns') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the ranking and filtering capabilities, which is enough to differentiate it from related tools like srovnani_ctvrti or ceny_bytu_lokalita.

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 explains the tool supports borough filtering and sort order, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list and the description's focus on ranking by median price imply its specific use case. A clear exclusion or alternative mention would push this higher.

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