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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data categories involved, but it does not explicitly state the operation (e.g., read-only lookup), the output form, or whether any side effects occur; these are only inferred from the informational nature of the content.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys all relevant categories without filler. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Kontakt' and organized with a dash and commas for readability.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent exactly what kind of information will be found. Sibling tool names further disambiguate the context, and no input/output documentation is required.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed because there are no inputs to describe.

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 identifies the resource as Painto.cz contact information and enumerates concrete contents: e-shop, physical store in Znojmo, phone, e-mail, invoicing data, and wholesale terms. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'provides', so it stops short of the clearest possible definition, though the resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like painto_doprava_platby or painto_sortiment.

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 listed data categories give an agent a clear context for when to select this tool: whenever contact, store, invoicing, or wholesale-condition information is requested. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the content makes the usage scenario apparent.

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