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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scope detail (it returns both priznani and kontrolni hlaseni), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens for a year with no filings.

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 with no filler, and the key scoping concept ('previously generated') is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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 about return shape, the description should carry more of the load: it never says what fields a filing record contains, how results are ordered, or how 'year' affects the list. For a tool whose sibling generate_vat_filing creates the same entities, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 50%: the 'year' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description does not explain whether it filters by filing period or filing date, or whether it is optional. The companyId description in the schema already covers the other parameter, so the description adds nothing.

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+resource: listing already-generated VAT filings (returns and control statements) for a company. The word 'Drive' (previously generated) implicitly separates it from the sibling generate_vat_filing, 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?

'Drive vygenerovana' implies this is for retrieving existing filings rather than creating them, which is useful context against generate_vat_filing. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tools are named, so the routing signal is only implied.

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