status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only verification action and lists returned identity fields, but it does not state what happens if the user is not logged in, whether any session setup is required, or that the operation has no side effects.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the output. There is no filler or redundant 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by naming the identity fields. It is slightly incomplete in not describing failure behavior or exact response format, but it gives an agent enough to understand the tool's core purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the mention of 'vybrané studium/období' describes output content rather than input.

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 Czech description states a specific action ('Ověří přihlášení k IS MUNI') and a concrete resource plus result ('základní identitu - jméno, učo, vybrané studium/období'). It is clear and distinct, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related identity/session tools like 'profil' or 'osoba'.

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 implies this tool is for checking the current login and obtaining basic identity, but it gives no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance and does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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