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

The description gives substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: suppression for 1–4 leads (null counts plus counts_band='<5'), the 0 and ≥5 thresholds, low_activity flag, and free tier. It also clarifies privacy guarantees (no names/addresses). This is far more than annotations alone.

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 three sentences with dense, purposeful content: purpose, privacy suppression rules, and pricing/PII guarantee. Every sentence earns its place 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's complexity (privacy suppression, thresholds, low_activity flag) and lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral nuances. An agent can accurately interpret returned counts and bands without additional documentation.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including examples, defaults, enums, and case-sensitivity for okres. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('distress real estate statistics for a Czech okres'), and names the data sources (ISIR insolvencies + portál dražeb / CEVD). This clearly distinguishes it from any individual-level lookup, even though no sibling tools are provided.

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: it is for district-level aggregate statistics from public registries, and explicitly notes that no per-person PII is included, implying it is not for individual-level searches. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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