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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the stub nature ('persists nothing yet'), the exact return structure (status enum, flags, next_step.url, pricing), and a critical safety note about not opening the onboarding link or submitting data on the user's behalf. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by essential caveats and return details. All sentences add value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields, statuses, flags, next_step.url, pricing, and user responsibility. It is coherent and leaves no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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 already describes the only parameter 'ico' (Czech IČO, 7-8 digits) with 100% coverage. The description merely reiterates 'by IČO' without adding new details, so it provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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 clearly states the tool starts onboarding for free monitoring of one Czech company by IČO. This specific verb ('start onboarding') and resource ('monitoring of one Czech company') distinguishes it from sibling lookup/search tools, which are about querying data rather than ongoing monitoring.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to initiate monitoring of a company via IČO, as opposed to one-time lookups from sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to infer when to select it.

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