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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the underlying data host (vdb.czso.cz), that no authentication is required, and that the resource list is a prerequisite for a downstream data call. This is meaningful added transparency.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs the essential fields, source, auth requirement, and workflow dependency. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers where the ID comes from, what the response contains, what to use next, and that no auth is needed. No critical call-time information 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%, and the schema already gives a strong dataset_id description with concrete examples. The tool description adds the workflow hint that the ID comes from czso.dataset_list, which is useful, but the parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action 'Get full metadata for one CZSO dataset', making the verb and resource unambiguous. It also lists the contained fields (description, update frequency, temporal coverage, tags, resource list), which distinguishes it from the sibling dataset_list and dataset_data tools. This is genuinely differentiated purpose clarity.

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 explicitly says the identifier comes from czso.dataset_list and that this tool is needed before calling czso.dataset_data, establishing a clear workflow order. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a direct alternative, but the predecessor/successor references provide strong contextual usage guidance.

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