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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the 30000-character chunking limit and the fact that continuation is driven by od_znaku, plus the Markdown structure of the payload. Authorization is not discussed, but for a read-only public-page fetch the remaining gap is minor.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then scope, then pagination mechanics. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 carries the return contract and does so: Markdown format, included sections, chunk size, and how to fetch subsequent chunks. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying the two parameters together into a pagination protocol ('nejvýše 30000 znaků, další část přes od_znaku'), which is meaning the schema alone does not convey about how od_znaku relates to truncated output.

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+resource ('Vrátí celý text stránky průvodce IUSTORIA jako Markdown') and enumerates the returned sections (summary, FAQ, sources). It is clearly distinct from the sibling hledat_v_pruvodcich, which it names as the discovery tool rather than a retrieval tool.

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 explicit routing ('adresy najde nástroj hledat_v_pruvodcich') and a hard scope constraint (only www.iustoria.cz pages approved by the guarantor), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not state a when-not-to-use case beyond that scope bound, so it stops short of a 5.

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