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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing chunked return and how to fetch the next chunk, but omits chunk size and how the agent detects the end of the document.

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 with zero filler; the purpose and the pagination mechanism are both front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the description should explain what a chunk looks like and how completion is signaled (empty text, offset beyond length). That missing termination signal is a real gap for a paginated read.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including odsazeni's character-offset semantics. The description adds the continuation usage of odsazeni but no syntax or bounds detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Vrátí text dokumentu') plus the delivery mode ('po částech'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It also differentiates from siblings by naming detail_bodu as the source of dokument_id, though it doesn't explicitly rule out other retrieval paths.

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 the prerequisite chain ('dokument_id z nástroje detail_bodu') and explains the continuation mechanism via odsazeni, which is real when/how context. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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