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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds behavior beyond them: the exact result shape, the meaning of the 'reviewed' flag, and a link explaining that review process — genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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 with the core purpose, then Args and Returns in a tight structure; every line carries information. The long topic enumeration in the opening sentence is borderline padding but does aid keyword matching, so only a minor deduction.

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 supplies the return fields (slug, title, description, updated, reviewed, url), explains the 'reviewed' semantics, and tells the agent what to do next. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up on this tool is missing.

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 67% and the description compensates by noting query accepts Czech or English keywords with concrete examples ('ubytování kauce', 'bez internetu') and restating the limit range/default and the two response_format values. The examples add real value for keyword construction, though the format details largely duplicate 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 (full-text search) and resource (EvidujZdarma guides about EET 2.0), and enumerates the covered topics. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling eet_get_guide by naming it as the follow-up step for reading full text, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly frames search as the discovery step and explicitly hands off to eet_get_guide with the returned slug for the full text, which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It lacks any exclusion against the other EET lookup siblings (eet_get_facts, eet_list_misconceptions), so it falls short of a 5.

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