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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job by stating what the tool returns: name, price incl. VAT, stock availability, and a link. It implicitly communicates a read-only search operation, though it does not cover edge cases such as no results or ordering behavior.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, gives representative examples, and then lists the return fields in one additional sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 relatively simple search tool, the description plus fully covered schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. It states the return payload, parameter semantics are documented, and no output schema exists to explain further. A minor gap is the lack of explicit failure/no-result behavior.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving real example values for 'dotaz' such as 'váleček', 'špachtle', and 'maskovací páska', which helps the agent form valid queries.

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 clearly states the action ('Najdi nářadí nebo příslušenství') and lists search keys (name, code, EAN, need) with concrete examples. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling catalog or assortment tools.

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 intended use is implied clearly: search for products by various identifiers or needs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over painto_sortiment, painto_katalog_pdx, or painto_dostupnost, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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