hladaj_subjekt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches a registry aggregating data from ~70 source registries, which adds useful context about data sources. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior that would be important for a search tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, parameter requirement, and data source context. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does well. It covers purpose, parameter relationships, and data source context. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or authentication, but the output schema reduces the completeness burden.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 3 parameters (nazov, ico, obec) and their relationship ('aspoň jeden z parametrov nazov/ico musí byť zadaný'). It doesn't mention the 'iba_aktivne' parameter, but provides good semantic context for the majority of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hľadá právnické osoby v RPO (Register právnických osôb)' - it searches for legal entities in a specific registry. It specifies the search criteria (by name, IČO, or municipality) and distinguishes from sibling 'detail_subjektu' by being a search function rather than a detail view.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Aspoň jeden z parametrov nazov/ico musí byť zadaný' specifies a mandatory parameter requirement. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use vs. the sibling tool 'detail_subjektu', but the search vs. detail distinction is implied. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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