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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description's main added value is the crucial caveat that it calculates the statutory tariff fee, not the actual contractual attorney fee. It also specifies which cost components are included, giving good behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a precise limitation. Every phrase earns its place: the first sentence enumerates outputs and the second clarifies the statutory-tariff basis.

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 an eight-parameter estimator with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is calculated and the statutory-tariff caveat. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling calculators, but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than missing essential context for invocation.

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 all eight parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description mentions some parameter-relevant concepts (court fee, attorney tariff, VAT), but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Odhadne') and resource ('náklady sporu o zaplacení peněz'), then enumerates the cost components it covers (court fee, attorney tariff, VAT, winner/loser outcomes). This clearly defines the tool, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'soudni_poplatky' or explain why one would choose this over that one.

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?

Usage context is implied by the title and the stated calculation scope, but the description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'soudni_poplatky' or 'exekutorsky_tarif'. It also gives no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the caveat about using statutory rather than contractual fees.

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