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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by noting that results vary by filing route and that the payment due date is 8 calendar days after the filing deadline. It does not contradict the annotation and provides helpful behavioral details. Given the annotation already covers safety, this is adequate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that packages all key behaviors without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core subject and then enumerates specifics. The structure is acceptable, though a slight split would improve readability.

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?

The description covers the what (deadlines for both insurers, payment due date), the variable (route), and the time context (annual report). Without an output schema, it does not describe return formatting, but that is not essential for a simple reference lookup. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for the route parameter's enum values, covering semantics well. The description mentions 'per tax-return filing route' but does not add new information about parameters. With 50% schema coverage, the schema carries the load and the description adds minimal value.

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 identifies the tool as providing filing deadlines for the annual OSVČ Přehled for both ČSSZ and the health insurer, distinguishing it from sibling get_filing_deadlines by specifying the exact resource and scope. Though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_' makes the operation clear. This is a strong purpose statement.

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 this tool—when you need OSVČ Přehled deadlines for a given tax year and route—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. With sibling tools like get_filing_deadlines present, there is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over others. Thus guidance is implied, not explicit.

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