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 structurally. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond parameter intent — no pagination, ordering default, result count, or empty-result behavior.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional modifiers trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness comes at the cost of the detail that usage and behavioral dimensions need.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description omits the limit parameter, default ordering, and anything about what a supplier record contains. Combined with the missing sibling differentiation, an agent can invoke it but not confidently.

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 67%, and the description maps onto the two richest parameters: 'top podle utraty' restates the 'spend' enum and 'fulltext filtr' corresponds to q. The 'limit' parameter (1-50) is undocumented in both the description and the schema, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Seznam dodavatelu' = list suppliers) and names the two optional modes (top by spend, fulltext filter). It is understandable in one read, but it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related 'list_companies' sibling, leaving the agent to guess which list to pick.

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?

'volitelne top podle utraty nebo fulltext filtr' implies that the spend-sort and fulltext modes are opt-in refinements, which is usable context. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never mentions the sibling list tools (list_companies, search), so the agent has no routing signal.

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