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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description adds items like the disclosure that matching quality depends on Czech terminology, and that results include price incl./excl. VAT, availability, delivery time and URL. That is real added context, but it omits ordering/relevance behavior, zero-result behavior and limit/cap semantics.

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 dense sentences with the catalog identity and query-language hint front-loaded, followed by the return payload. Every sentence carries information, though the VAT repetition is mildly redundant with 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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description helpfully summarizes what comes back (price, availability, delivery time, URL) and the annotations cover safety. Remaining gaps are pagination/limit behavior, result ordering and empty-result handling.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, limit, in_stock_only and the price bounds, including the 'incl. VAT' phrasing used by the description. The description's contribution is the context that the catalog mixes own stock with partner warehouses, which motivates in_stock_only, but it gives no extra meaning to min/max price or limit.

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 names a specific verb and resource (full-text search in the puhy.cz catalog) and narrows scope to own stock plus partner warehouses. It implicitly separates itself from get_product and check_availability by being a search, but never names those siblings as alternatives.

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 implies usage through guidance on query formulation (Czech terms, part numbers, EAN, with examples in the schema) but never states when to use this versus get_product or check_availability, nor any exclusion. It is implied usage, not explicit routing.

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