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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: fuzziness/tolerance of typos, refusal to substitute an unrelated entry, and the offered partial/similar-term fallback. It stops short of describing pagination or response size, but for a read-only glossary lookup that 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?

Front-loaded with what is returned and what inputs are accepted, with no filler. The bilingual CZ+EN pairing duplicates content, which is defensible for audience coverage but does cost some tightness.

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 burden of describing returns and it does so concretely (short definition, verbatim statutory text with version, related terms, guide/calculator pages). Behavior on no-match is also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing for a 4-param read-only lookup.

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 meaningfully extends the schema by clarifying that 'dotaz' accepts abbreviations, inflected forms, lay questions and provisions — not just the literal term. It does not re-explain 'obor' or 'pocet', which the schema already handles.

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+resource ('Vysvětlí český právní pojem z právního slovníku IUSTORIA') and immediately identifies what it returns (definition, verbatim statute with version, related terms, guides/calculators). It differentiates from siblings like hledat_v_pruvodcich and souvisejici by noting it explains the term, not the procedure.

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 explicitly enumerates acceptable query forms (term, abbreviation, inflected form, lay question, statutory provision, typo-tolerant) and states when it is and is not the right tool: 'Vykládá pojem, ne konkrétní situaci; k postupu vede průvodce.' It also defines fallback behavior when no entry exists.

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