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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the 25,000-character truncation limit, the inclusion of FAQ and sources, the Czech/Markdown content, and the expert-review availability filter.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args/Returns layout; the return-field list is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. Minor noise: the garbled resource name 'EvidujZdarma' in the opening line.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the truncation cap, and it flags the availability precondition. Missing only edge-case handling (what happens when text is truncated, error behavior for invalid slugs).

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter notes (slug 'returned by eet_search_guides', response_format markdown/json) essentially restate what the schema and enum already document. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 (Return) and resource (the full text of one guide) plus scope qualifiers (single guide, by slug, Czech/Markdown content). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling eet_search_guides, which is named as the source of the slug.

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?

Establishes the workflow dependency explicitly: the slug must come from eet_search_guides, and only expert-reviewed guides are fetchable. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., use search first if you don't have a slug), but the context is clear.

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