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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait beyond the name — that the response includes a total match count — and it implies a read-only lookup. But it stays silent on pagination, sorting, or the shape of returned offers, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the resource, filter flexibility, and a key return-value detail with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's purpose, optional filters, and the total count. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the structure of returned offers or how results are ordered/limited beyond the limit parameter documented in the schema, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds only the high-level guarantee that filters are optional and combinable, which is useful but does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with the verb 'Vyhledá' and a specific resource, 'nemovitosti v aktuální nabídce GROO reality', making the search scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as detail_nabidky, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

It states that all filters are optional and can be combined, which gives some guidance on parameter usage. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over detail_nabidky or projekty, so the 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.