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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral facts that results are Czech paths plus names and that paths are consumable by the record tools. It does not cover result volume, ordering, or whether non-business tables are included in output, which are minor gaps given annotations carry the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the follow-on usage note. The Czech examples earn their place by anchoring an otherwise opaque domain term.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what comes back (Czech path and name), and it explains the downstream contract with list_records/get_record. For a simple one-parameter discovery tool this is nearly complete; only output breadth/ordering is unstated.

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 single 'search' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including case-insensitivity and length bounds) and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the semantic work.

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 the evidences (tables) of the company') plus the returned fields (Czech path and name), and grounds the abstract term with concrete examples (faktura-vydana, adresar, cenik). An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the concrete listing siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: use a path from here as 'evidence' in abraflexi_list_records / abraflexi_get_record. The 'only business evidences are readable there' note sets a real constraint. It does not explain why an agent would pick this generic route over the dedicated siblings (abraflexi_list_issued_invoices, abraflexi_list_contacts), which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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