Postbot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say what happens for an unknown order code, whether authentication is needed, or what the status payload looks like, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the core meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool the input side is fully covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the description says nothing about the returned status values or error cases. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter is already documented as the 'ČP order code (kodobjednavky)'. The description repeats 'ČP order code' without adding format, validation, or sourcing details, so 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 ('look up') and resource ('delivery status of a sent letter') plus the identifying key, so the action is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the sibling send_letter_cz, but the read-vs-send distinction is legible from the phrasing alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. 'Sent letter' weakly implies the letter must already exist (e.g. via send_letter_cz), but this is left entirely to inference rather than stated as a condition.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious trait that this dispatches a real, irreversible physical letter and that markdown/text is rendered server-side. However, it omits the meaning of the `test` flag (a dry-run escape hatch is critical here), cost implications, delivery time, and failure/auth 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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the format/choice details following. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main happy path but not the remainder. It never says what the call returns or how the resulting letter is referenced later by get_letter_status, which the presence of `jobRef` strongly implies is important.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate. It correctly explains the four document input shapes and the service enum, plus the `from` requirement, but leaves `note`, `test`, `jobRef`, and the nested address object semantics entirely undocumented.

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 (mail a real paper letter in the Czech Republic via Česká pošta), including the provider and the physical nature of the action. This cleanly separates it from the sibling get_letter_status, which retrieves state rather than sending.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance ('Registered requires a `from` sender address') and names both service options, but never explains when to pick ordinary vs registered (cost, tracking, delivery guarantees). Usage context is implied rather than prescribed.

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