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 reveals that the output is the full article text, but says nothing about read-only behavior, error handling for invalid ids, how the id should be obtained, or the response structure. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler. The key differentiator ('ne jen perex') is front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior and the schema covers the parameter. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and any behavioral details beyond the text returned, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%: the id parameter is described as 'Číslo článku ze seznamu aktuality', so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds only implicit context that the id refers to an article and does not provide additional format or syntax details, keeping it at the baseline.

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 states the tool provides the full text of a single article ('Celý text jednoho článku') and explicitly distinguishes it from a mere perex ('ne jen perex'), which separates it from the list sibling 'aktuality'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', making it clear but slightly less direct.

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 usage context by contrasting with 'ne jen perex', suggesting this tool is for fetching full article content rather than a summary. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance 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.