Evidence exekucí

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the key behavior beyond them: this call performs no lookup, it registers a check and hands back a token. That two-step workflow disclosure is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-obvious no-op property, then the input combinations. Nothing is padding.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent must know: what happens (nothing), what comes back (a token), and how to supply identity data. It could say what to do with the token next, but that belongs to the sibling tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that the parameter groups are alternatives (or rc, or ico, or spzn) rather than an accumulating set. It omits the 'jen pokud ho uživatel sám uvedl' caution for cislo_op, but that is already in the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Založí prověrku') plus a stated return value (token) and the crucial qualifier that nothing is actually invoked yet. It separates itself from siblings like get_report/order_executions by that qualifier, though it never names check_register, which is the closest-looking sibling.

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?

The description tells the agent the valid input combinations (jmeno+prijmeni+narozen, or rc, or ico, or spzn), which is real usage guidance for picking a path. It does not say when to choose this tool over check_register or when a follow-up call becomes appropriate, so context relative to alternatives is only implied.

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

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

Adds useful facts beyond the annotations: the check is free, limited to one register per call, and subject to per-register preconditions. It does not disclose token consumption, whether results are cached, or what a failed/partial check looks like, which matters given readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the key qualifier ('Bezplatně', one register) and then parenthesizes the per-register caveats. No filler.

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, the description should set expectations for what comes back from a check (result shape, whether a token is consumed, partial failures), and it doesn't. The input side is well covered, the output side is not.

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?

The 'register' enum has no per-value descriptions in the schema, and the description is the only place explaining what each of the five values actually returns. It also clarifies that 'cislo_op' is only used for 'doklad' - a constraint not expressible in the schema.

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 ('Bezplatně ověří jeden rejstřík u prověrky') and enumerates the five registers precisely, so the agent knows exactly what is checked. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like check_person or get_report, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete per-register conditions: 'doklad' requires a document number, 'dph' only works for IČO or birth number, and 'katastr' is limited to own property. It does not say when to prefer this over check_person/get_report, but the register-scoping guidance is clear context.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: results are progressive, with the executions list only appearing after payment. It does not say how long processing takes or what an unpaid/pending state looks like, which would have made it a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three returned artifacts are listed compactly. It is arguably a touch too compressed for a tool whose output shape varies by payment state.

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, the description must convey return content, and it names the three result blocks, including the conditional executions list. It omits error/expired-token behavior and whether repeated polling is expected.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains the token originates from check_person. The description adds nothing about token semantics, lifetime, or reuse, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Vrátí aktuální stav prověrky') and enumerates the contents of the response (verified registers, payment status, executions after payment). It implicitly positions itself as the status/polling tool relative to check_person and order_executions, but never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied: the token comes from check_person (per schema) and the mention of 'po zaplacení' hints that the tool is re-called after payment. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of check_register or order_executions, and no guidance on polling cadence.

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

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates a payment, returns a paymentUrl to hand to the user, and supports card, Google Pay, and Apple Pay, though it does not warn that repeated calls may create multiple payments.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core action and the paymentUrl handoff are front-loaded, followed by the essential consent precondition.

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 payment-preparation tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value via paymentUrl and the payment methods. It covers the key consent condition, though it could be more complete by stating the price or clarifying behavior on repeated calls.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description clarifies that the detail value comes from get_report, which is modest added meaning, but it does not discuss the optional email parameter or add much beyond the existing schema text.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it prepares payment for either a list of executions or a single execution detail from get_report. It explicitly distinguishes the two modes and ties the detail variant to the sibling get_report, so the agent can tell what it does.

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 states a clear precondition: call only after the user agrees to the price, and it identifies get_report as the source of the detail identifier. It does not explicitly rule out use before check_person, but the token requirement is documented in the schema.

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