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 covered. The description adds that results are paginated, which is useful, but says nothing about default ordering, filter combination behavior, or limits beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core scope (what is listed) is front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently covers the return shape.

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 5 optional filters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description only minimally covers return behavior ('strankovany seznam'). It is adequate but leaves filter interaction and ordering unexplained for a tool whose whole value is filtered listing.

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 80%, so type, limit, search, and status are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reiterating that filtering and fulltext exist, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Vypis ... dokladu') and scopes it to both received and issued documents with example types (uctenky, faktury). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_document sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Mentions that filtering and fulltext are available, which hints at use cases, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria relative to get_document, search, or list_overdue_invoices. Usage is only implied.

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