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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context: prices are returned in haléře/CZK minor units and availability is live, and it discloses an authentication-like prerequisite (agent profile in meta). It still omits whether the call is read-only (implied by 'search'), how results are paginated, and what a failed profile check does.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the Czech-language sentence fragments and the parenthetical protocol identifier ('Universal Commerce Protocol 2026-08-25') add noise rather than usable guidance for a general agent. Every clause is terse, but the content-to-signal ratio is mediocre.

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 nested-object search tool with two required params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the source, the price unit, and the auth prerequisite. It never explains pagination/cursor behavior or result shape, and the sibling landscape (multiple search-like tools) is left unresolved.

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%, so both meta and catalog are already documented in the schema, including the nested query/filters/pagination shape. The description adds the price-unit convention and restates the meta profile requirement, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('UCP Catalog Search', search of Painto.cz assortment) plus the protocol version, so the agent knows it queries a product catalog. However it gives no differentiation from siblings such as painto_hledej, painto_sortiment, or lookup_catalog, which are not obviously distinguishable from this search tool.

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 only usage constraint is a prerequisite ('Vyžaduje meta[ucp-agent].profile'), which tells the agent what must be supplied but not when to choose this tool over painto_hledej or lookup_catalog. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given.

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