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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the temporal branching rule (mandate before/after 1.1.2026), the deliberate exclusion of the záloha due to § 12 odst. 2 ambiguity, and that both readings are surfaced in a warning. This is meaningful behavioral context a caller could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then packs the enumeration of sub-cases and the exclusion note into a dense but information-carrying paragraph. Every clause maps to an actual computation rule, though the density is on the edge of being hard to scan.

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 six-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the decision space (situations, mandate versions, flat-rate tiers, DPH) and flags the one intentional omission with a warning, which is the key output-relevant fact. It is essentially complete, with the minor gap that it does not sketch the returned figures.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description summarizes some drivers (band-based odměna, 50% for early payment, 3,500/4,500 flat rate, increases for multiple parties, DPH) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a precise verb and resource (computes executor's fee and flat expense reimbursement in a money-collection execution) and anchors it to a specific legal regulation (vyhláška 330/2001). This clearly separates it from siblings like naklady_sporu and soudni_poplatky, which cover different cost types.

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?

Gives clear context for use (exekuce na zaplacení peněz), distinguishes pre-/post-2026 mandates, and explicitly states a limitation (záloha na náklady se nepočítá). It does not, however, name sibling tools or give explicit when-not conditions relative to them, so 4 rather than 5.

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