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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses an additional output ('Řekne také, kolik se vrátí při smíru nebo zpětvzetí'), which the agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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 calculating verb, then a compact enumeration of case types, then the refund behavior. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining scope; only minor trimming would be possible.

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 correctly compensates by stating that a fee amount is computed and that refund-on-settlement/withdrawal is also returned. Given a read-only stateless calculator with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; a note on output format would close the remaining gap.

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% and all seven parameters carry detailed enum/default documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description largely maps onto the same case types already in the schema and adds only marginal detail (e.g. 'elektronický platební rozkaz'), not new parameter semantics.

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 ('Spočítá soudní poplatek podle zákona o soudních poplatcích') and enumerates the exact case types covered (žaloba o peníze, rozvod, vypořádání, určení vlastnictví, odvolání, dovolání). The scope is unambiguous, though it never names the neighboring tools (e.g. naklady_sporu) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

The list of covered proceedings implicitly signals when the tool applies, and the mention of appeals/cassation widens that context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs a sibling like naklady_sporu (court costs vs fees), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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