RSolution.cz

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that figures are indicative ranges rather than exact prices, which is useful, but says nothing about return format, currency, or scope of coverage; for a zero-annotation tool this is thin.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core content (price ranges by type of work) is front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to explain what content comes back, and it does so at a high level. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned price list, which is the one remaining gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and no parameter confusion is possible.

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 resource (a services price list) and adds scope beyond the bare name 'cenik': it is an indicative list of price ranges broken down by type of work. That is clear enough to know what the tool returns, though it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling 'sluzby'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives 'sluzby' or 'dostupnost'. The agent must infer entirely on its own that this is the tool for pricing questions rather than the service catalogue.

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the informational/status nature of the call (whether orders are accepted, earliest free slot), which implies a read-only query, but it never explicitly states read-only status, auth requirements, or any side-effect profile.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a 0-parameter tool, though it offers no additional structure beyond that one sentence.

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 simple, zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the call reports (order acceptance status and earliest available date), which is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; per the baseline for a 0-parameter tool this scores 4.

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 states a specific query: whether new orders are being accepted and the earliest free appointment date. That is clearer than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like cenik (pricing) and sluzby (services), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cenik or sluzby. The agent must infer when this tool is appropriate purely from the topic sentence.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: the response arrives by e-mail within 24 hours, which tells the agent this is an asynchronous, out-of-band channel. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, whether submissions are persisted, or what confirmation the caller receives, leaving meaningful gaps for a write-style tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core action (sending an inquiry to a named recipient) is front-loaded before the response-expectation detail. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 simple three-parameter, all-required form with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the expected response channel. It omits what happens to the submission, any prerequisites, and how it relates to the sibling tools, so it is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three required parameters (jmeno, email, zprava) with clear Czech descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about format, length limits, or validation beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Pošle ... zprávu s poptávkou') and identifies the recipient, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools (cenik, dostupnost, sluzby), which are all lookup-type resources. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how this relates to the sibling tools. The agent can infer it is a contact/inquiry form, but nothing states the conditions under which this should be chosen over the other three tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only informational lookup but says nothing about what data is returned, whether it is static content, or how it relates to the other service-related tools. For a zero-param info tool the gap is modest but real.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too thin to route an agent confidently.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it gives just one sentence. It is minimally adequate for a simple static info tool but leaves the relationship to sibling tools and the nature of the returned content unspecified.

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 takes no parameters (parameter count 0), so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific resource – an overview of the services offered by a named provider (Roman Svoboda / RSolution.cz). This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like cenik (pricing) and dostupnost (availability), though it never names them. The verb 'Přehled' (overview/list) is clear enough to convey intent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus cenik, dostupnost, or napis_mi, nor any exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it lists services. An agent must guess whether to call this before or instead of the pricing/availability tools.

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