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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful detail: municipalities are limited to those where offers actually exist, which is a scoping behavior an agent should know. It does not describe response structure, side effects, or whether the data is static, but for a simple read-only codelist this is a moderate but acceptable gap.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core concept—'allowed filter values'—and then lists the specific categories. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description gives a decent sense of what will be returned. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the response shape, grouping, or how these values should be used by other tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity, especially around how types, categories, dispositions, and municipalities relate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned filter values are—types, categories with dispositions, and municipalities—which is the relevant semantic content for this no-parameter tool.

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 resource as allowed filter values—types, categories with dispositions, and municipalities with actual offers. It implies a codelist/getter tool and is distinguishable from content and search siblings like hledej_nemovitosti or detail_nabidky, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'provides'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: because this exposes permitted filter values, an agent can infer it should be used to populate or validate filters for real-estate searches. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it mention that these values feed into hledej_nemovitosti.

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