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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: fulltext search returns at most 8 snippets, and read consumes a slug obtained from a prior search and can return a whole article or just a chapter.

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: what it is, how the two modes behave, when to reach for it. The capability statement and the 8-snippet limit are front-loaded with no wasted clauses.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the search-then-read workflow and the when-to-use condition. Only the search→read dependency is implied rather than spelled out as a required two-step sequence.

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%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter including enums and the heading fallback is documented in the schema. The description restates the mode/query and mode/slug pairing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 pair (hledá a čte) plus the exact resource (oficiální česká dokumentace SHOPZI, administrace i vývojáři) and names both operating modes. No sibling touches documentation, so the agent can immediately tell this is the docs-lookup tool.

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 an explicit trigger: use it when a person asks how something is done in SHOPZI or how to connect a store. It does not explicitly exclude adjacent needs (plans, store creation, subdomain checks) handled by the siblings, but the trigger condition is clear enough to route correctly.

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