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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output is conditional ('insolvency-register record if present') and lists the registers consulted, which adds some transparency. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error behavior for missing entities, or any performance characteristics. It provides a moderate level of behavior but not comprehensive coverage.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('KYC-style snapshot') and then lists specifics. It is efficient with no filler. However, it relies on unexpanded abbreviations (VR, RZP, etc.) that may be opaque to agents lacking domain knowledge, which slightly reduces clarity but not conciseness itself.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of outlining the expected return content (status, register memberships, insolvency record). It does not detail the exact structure or error cases, but for a single-parameter tool with a snapshot purpose, it covers the key components an agent would need to understand the result. It is not exhaustive but is adequate.

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 for the single parameter (id) with a clear description ('IČO or DIČ'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or format guidance beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description contributes nothing extra.

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 produces a 'KYC-style snapshot' and enumerates specific content: active/cancelled status, which registers the entity appears in (VR, RZP, NRPZS, RS insolvency, RCNS, SZR), and an insolvency-register record if present. This goes beyond a vague 'entity status' and gives a concrete picture of what the tool returns, distinguishing it from sibling lookup/validation tools.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'KYC-style snapshot' phrasing, suggesting it is for risk/background checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like company_lookup or validate_cz. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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