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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the result is Markdown text of one page, implying a read-only content retrieval, but it does not address invalid or missing URIs or whether the response can be empty. It is not misleading, but the behavioral detail is minimal.

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: the first states what the tool returns, and the second states when to use it. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-oriented tool, the description adequately covers the output format and the intended use cases. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that 'stranky' might help discover valid URIs, but the schema example and the natural website-path format make the tool usable without that.

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 'uri' parameter is fully documented with the path format and examples like 'sluzby/prodej' or 'kontakt'. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning the text of one website page in Markdown ('Text jedné stránky webu v markdownu') and links it to a concrete use case. It is clear enough to distinguish from content-list tools like 'stranky' and detail tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'vrací' (returns) and does not name a sibling directly.

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 gives explicit triggers: use it when someone asks how the office works, what it does when selling, or what services it offers. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like 'stranky' for finding page URIs, but the provided context is clear.

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