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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuine behavioral fact — 'Data jsou v reálném čase z databáze' (real-time data) — which tells the agent results are live rather than cached. It says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, rate limits, result size, or pagination, which is a notable gap with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the freshness attribute. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields (specs, dimensions, prices) and the data freshness. It still leaves the response shape unclear (single record vs. full list) and does not state that omitting 'category' returns the whole fleet.

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% and the single optional enum parameter is fully self-documenting, so baseline 3 applies. The description lists what kind of data is returned but says nothing about how the 'category' filter behaves (e.g. omitted = all vehicles), adding no meaning 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 verb and resource ('Získá kompletní informace o vozovém parku') and enumerates the payload (technical parameters, dimensions, prices), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but the siblings (booking, availability, load calculation, contacts) are far enough apart that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as check_availability when the agent actually wants date-specific availability. The agent must infer that this is the static catalogue lookup; nothing in the text states that.

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