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.