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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable operational context: catalog size (~1000), no auth required, no full-text search capability, and the exact output fields returned. This goes beyond the annotation hints and sets accurate expectations for discovery behavior.

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?

Three sentences front-load the main purpose, then filter behavior, then downstream use and source/auth. No filler; each clause adds information an agent needs for correct invocation. Length is appropriate for a catalog-browsing tool.

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?

The description covers scope, filtering, pagination intent, downstream tooling, authentication, and data source. With an output schema present, the return-field mention is a helpful orientation rather than a requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: limit, offset, and id_prefix all have explanatory descriptions with defaults and examples. The tool description restates id_prefix's substring role but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('Czech Statistical Office open-data catalog'), with scale and topical scope. It also identifies downstream consumers (czso.dataset_metadata, czso.dataset_data), distinguishing this catalog-listing tool from those sibling 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?

The description explains the id_prefix filter behavior and explicitly notes CZSO has no full-text search, directing agents to page with offset/limit when no prefix is used. It points to downstream tools for metadata/data retrieval, which is a clear routing hint, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus those siblings.

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