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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: only guarantor-checked published pages are returned (drafts excluded), output is Markdown, and long pages are chunked at 30000 characters with continuation via od_znaku. It also discloses that articles include author and date and guides include the guarantor. Auth requirements and failure modes are not covered.

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-loaded with the action and return format, then content types, exclusions, metadata, and chunking in a logical order. Slightly long with a bilingual EN echo, but no sentence is wasted and the duplication is minimal.

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 and only two parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: format (Markdown), content-type coverage, metadata fields, draft exclusion, and pagination behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and consume the result 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully contextualizes od_znaku by explaining the 30000-character chunking that motivates it and confirms url accepts a full address or just a path. This adds operational meaning beyond the schema's own wording.

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 specific verb and resource ('Vrátí celý text publikované stránky ... jako Markdown') and enumerates the page kinds it covers (guide, blog article, service page). It also names the sibling tool hledat_v_pruvodcich as the way to obtain addresses, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context for use: fetch the text of a published page, with addresses sourced via hledat_v_pruvodcich. It routes to the alternative for URL discovery, but does not state an explicit 'when not to use' or a prerequisite that the page must already exist and be published beyond the drafts exclusion.

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