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

The annotation only indicates readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Weekend and holiday shifts are applied.' This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing that the deadline is adjusted for non-working days, which is useful context for the agent. No contradictions are present.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (deadline + entity + routes), and the second adds a key behavioral rule. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a deadline), for what (DPFO), and the key behavior (weekend/holiday shifts). It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., a date), but the description is adequate for the tool's complexity and annotation support.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the route enum names ('paper, self-filed electronic, or via tax advisor') but does not introduce new semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. It adds marginal value by confirming the relationship between routes and deadlines.

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 clearly states the tool returns a deadline for the Czech personal income tax return (DPFO), specifying the resource (tax year) and scope (per filing route). It explicitly lists the three filing routes (paper, self-filed electronic, tax advisor), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prehled_deadlines or czech_working_days.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need a specific filing deadline for a given tax year and route—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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