Check whether a Czech company (by IČO) has any active insolvency proceeding in ISIR. Returns spisová značka, start date, and current phase if found. Returns "no record" if not (which is also informative).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ico | Yes | Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns spisová značka, start date, and current phase if found, and explicitly states what happens when no record exists ('no record'). This goes beyond the annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or vague wording.
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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the input, and the return behavior, giving the agent enough to invoke and interpret results correctly.
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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'ico' with its format (7-8 digits), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 checks for active insolvency proceedings for a Czech company by IČO, with specific verb ('check'), resource ('Czech company by IČO'), and system ('ISIR'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on IČO (company) rather than persons.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a Czech IČO and need to know about active insolvency proceedings in ISIR. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking a company by IČO, polling recent events, and searching by person. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_ico_insolvency, poll_isir_events, search_person_insolvency), ensuring predictability.
Three tools precisely cover the key interactions with the ISIR register without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The set covers the three core use cases for this read-only register: company lookup, person search, and event monitoring. No obvious gaps for its domain.