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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose: no note on auth requirements, no indication of whether a missing/unconnected databox is an error or a normal response, and no rate or freshness information.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core question. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what the returned status looks like (possible state values, what 'not connected' means). It stops at the purpose statement and leaves the response shape entirely unspecified, which is a real gap for a status-check tool.

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 parameter companyId is documented in the schema as coming from list_companies. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-schematized params 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 names the resource (datova schranka / databox) and the specific question it answers: whether the company has one connected and what the connection state is. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_databox_messages, which an agent might also reach for when dealing with databox functionality.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_databox_messages, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. that it presupposes a valid companyId or a registered databox). The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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