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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the query-construction constraint (Czech, max 5 words), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or whether empty/misspelled queries return an error.

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 tight sentences: the search scope first, then the query-format rule with an inline example. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 output schema the description need not explain return shape, and it adequately covers scope and query form. It is slightly thin on how results are ordered/paged and on routing relative to hledat_v_okoli, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 optional obec/od_data filters are already documented. The description goes beyond the schema by adding a soft query-length ceiling (max 5 words) and an example query, complementing the schema's 'aspoň 2 znaky' minimum and clarifying how 'dotaz' should actually be phrased.

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?

Names a specific verb (fulltextově prohledá) and concrete resources (oznámení z obecních zastupitelstev a úředních desek a parcely), so an agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling hledat_v_okoli, which is a plausible alternative for a spatial query, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Provides real query-formulation guidance (Czech, max 5 words, worked example 'prodej pozemek'), which is actionable for invocation. But it never says when to choose this tool over hledat_v_okoli, najit_obec, or dokument, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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