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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core transformation and the code components returned, but it says nothing about failure on unresolvable addresses, ambiguity handling, or whether any external state is affected.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; the transformation is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds precise output details. Every token contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 single parameter and the explicit output components, an agent can reasonably call the tool. However, with no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity about the exact return structure and how invalid or unresolvable addresses are handled.

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 single address parameter, including a concrete example, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'free-text Czech address' reinforces the expected input format but adds no schema-independent detail.

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 names a concrete transformation (free-text Czech address to RÚIAN-standardized form) and specifies the output artifacts (full KOD ADM, codes for obec/část/ulice, correct PSC). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings focused on VAT, company lookup, or entity status.

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 use case is only implied by the description: it is for standardizing free-text Czech addresses, which none of the siblings cover. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any alternative routing.

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