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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context that the default response is detail full and that a fields parameter can return a subset, plus the caveat that field names are Czech vendor property names. It does not describe not-found behavior, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable given the annotation 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 two sentences with no wasted language. The core action and id forms are front-loaded, and the field-name caveat follows naturally.

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 simple single-record read with fully described parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials: what is returned by default, how to identify the record, and the vendor-specific field naming. It does not explain error behavior or exact output structure, but no output schema exists and the description still communicates the default full-detail return.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id forms and Czech field naming, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: get one record of any business evidence, with full detail, by numeric id or identifier. It clearly separates this from list-style tools by emphasizing retrieval of a single record, but it does not explicitly name the more specific get_* siblings as alternatives.

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 by the ability to fetch one record by id, and the evidence parameter points to abraflexi_list_evidences for discovering valid values. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this generic getter versus the dedicated get_contact/get_issued_invoice tools or when to use list_records for searching.

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