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.