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.