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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states content scope and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return shape is, how articles are ordered, or whether pagination/freshness behavior applies.

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 one compact clause that states topic and scope without filler. The key noun phrase 'Články z webu' is front-loaded, and every part contributes meaning.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, a minimal description can be workable, but this one omits any explicit statement of the return format or ordering. An agent would benefit from knowing that the tool returns a list of articles and what fields to expect.

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 only parameter, limit, already has its default value documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but this is acceptable because the schema fully covers them.

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 'Články z webu — dění v kanceláři a na realitním trhu' identifies the resource as web articles about office and real-estate market news, which distinguishes it from property-search or detail tools. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the name and title make the retrieval purpose clear.

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 topical context implies when the tool is relevant: for office and real-estate news. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, and it does not contrast with detail_aktuality for fetching a single article.

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