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.