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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—checking stock quantity by code or EAN—but does not explain edge cases, exact return format, or behavior when the code is not found. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the resource, and the lookup key.

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-parameter lookup tool, the description tells the agent what to pass and what it returns (stock quantity). It could add detail about zero-stock or not-found behavior, but the core context needed for correct invocation is present.

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 the parameter description already states 'Katalogový kód nebo EAN produktu.' The tool description repeats the same information without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a concrete action and resource: 'Zjisti, kolik kusů konkrétního produktu je skladem' (find how many pieces of a specific product are in stock). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like painto_hledej (general search) and painto_sortiment by focusing on stock quantity lookup via catalog code or EAN.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent has a catalog code or EAN and needs a stock count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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