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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it caps results at five pages, notes the expert-guarantee curation, and describes the return shape (short answer, related questions, link). It stops short of covering rate limits or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads what the tool searches before describing the return and the sibling hand-off. No filler sentences, though it packs several distinct facts into one long sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden, describing the five-page cap and the answer/question/link payload. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the definition is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the topic scope but its example list is partial and includes 'rozvod', which is not one of the eight enum hub values, adding little 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Vyhledá stránky českých právních průvodců IUSTORIA') and scopes the searchable topics with concrete examples. It also names the sibling nacist_stranku as the tool for the full text, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from retrieval without opening any schema.

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 clearly signals the retrieval boundary by pointing to nacist_stranku for the full page text, which tells the agent when this tool alone is insufficient. It does not, however, describe when to prefer this tool over the other legal siblings (lhuta, promlceni, exekutorsky_tarif), so routing among those is left to inference.

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