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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the constraint of verified reservations, which is useful, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, error behavior for invalid codes, or whether the operation is read-only. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers its purpose and a key constraint. It could hint at the return format or pagination behavior, but the existing information is adequate for basic understanding.

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% (the only parameter partner_code has a description in the schema: 'Kód partnera (z get_partners)'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns reviews and ratings of partner services from verified reservations. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource 'partner_reviews' is explicitly described, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_partners or get_product.

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 mentions the constraint 'len z overených rezervácií' (only from verified reservations), which implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it reference alternatives or prerequisites like obtaining the partner_code from get_partners.

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