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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the tariff band (2,5 % of first 100 000 Kč), the minimum 2 500 Kč, the flat 4 000 Kč for non-monetary decisions, rounding direction (tariff value to hundreds, fee up to tens), the ±100 % range under § 9, the 300 Kč paušál and VAT. An agent knows exactly what the result will contain and how it is derived.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb, the legal basis and the single supported act come first, then the exclusions and the Czech/English pairing at the end. The long parenthetical of rates is information-bearing rather than padding, though it packs several clauses into one 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned components (fee range, flat fee, VAT). For a single-purpose calculator with three well-documented parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that only 'valna-hromada' is supported and that a decision with no monetary value (change of director, registered office) falls under the fixed 4 000 Kč case, which justifies omitting 'castka'.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Spočítá odměnu notáře podle vyhlášky č. 196/2001 Sb.') and pins the scope to exactly one act ('jen za jeden úkon: notářský zápis o rozhodnutí valné hromady'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like exekutorsky_tarif or odmena_advokata.

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?

Explicitly states both the positive case and the exclusion ('Jiné notářské úkony nepočítá'), so an agent knows not to route other notarial deeds here. It stops short of naming a fallback tool for those other acts, which keeps it from a 5.

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