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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, but the description adds substantive context they don't carry: the document is assembled in the user's browser and filled data never leaves to the IUSTORIA server or the conversation. That privacy/flow detail is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

The behavioral and usage guidance is front-loaded in tight sentences before the enumeration. The 29-item template list dominates the length, but each entry carries information the enum alone does not, so it largely earns its place rather than being padding.

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 a single-enum, read-only template-opening tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, the rendering fallback, the privacy flow, and the meaning of every valid id. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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% and the enum lists slug identifiers only, so the schema cannot tell the agent what any slug means. The description supplies Czech human-readable meanings for all 29 template ids (e.g., 'uznani-dluhu (Uznání dluhu a dohoda o splátkách)'), which is genuine added meaning beyond the structured field.

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 and resource: it opens a template form in the conversation for the user to fill in and download as .docx. It also distinguishes itself from vzor_info by delegating 'what it's for and when not to use it' to that sibling. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when/when-not/alternatives: do not fill the form on the user's behalf, do not ask for personal data in chat, and consult vzor_info for purpose and non-use cases. The fallback for clients that cannot render the form (a web link to the same form) is also specified, which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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