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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the critical precondition (source filing must be SUBMITTED/CONFIRMED/REJECTED), the side effect (produces draft XML and sends nothing), and that it overwrites any prior unsent correction draft. That last point is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling and is not derivable from destructiveHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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 core action and precondition are front-loaded, followed by kind semantics and then the non-submission/overwrite caveat. It is a dense run-on paragraph with semicolon-separated clauses, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, overwrite behavior and kind selection, which is most of what is needed. The remaining gap is the meaning of the two numeric/pattern parameters (okec, cisloUfo).

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 50%, and the description compensates well for `kind` by explaining the enum values and the deadline-based fallback that the schema does not encode. However, `okec` and `cisloUfo` are undocumented in both schema and description, so the coverage gap is only partly closed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Pripravi opravu uz odeslaneho DPH podani') and immediately scopes it to filings in state SUBMITTED, CONFIRMED or REJECTED, which cleanly separates it from generate_vat_filing (new filing) and submit_vat_filing (sends). An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

It gives explicit conditions for choosing between the correction kinds – opravne before the deadline (full resubmission) vs dodatecne after it (differences only, line 66) – and states that kind is auto-derived from the deadline when omitted. The only gap is that it never names sibling tools (e.g. generate_vat_filing) as alternatives, so tool-level routing is inferred rather than stated.

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