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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the default newest-first ordering and explains what the returned fields sumCelkem and typPohybuK mean. It does not cover pagination or permission requirements, but the annotation reduces the burden.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact note on default ordering and key output-field meanings.

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 read-only list tool whose parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, default sort order, and important output fields. Pagination behavior is not described in prose, though limit/start are documented in the schema, and no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description adds some semantic context by naming the filter categories and the amount/direction fields, but it does not materially extend the meaning of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list cash desk movements, with the Czech evidence name pokladni-pohyb and a clear scope of cash receipts and payouts. This distinguishes it from sibling movement-list tools such as abraflexi_list_bank_movements and abraflexi_list_stock_movements.

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 gives useful filtering context (dates, cash desk, variable symbol, text), so intended usage is implied. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like abraflexi_list_bank_movements or abraflexi_list_records, nor does it state exclusions.

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