export_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important side effect — files are written to Přehledy/<rok>/ — and the two output formats, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, whether the operation is safe to repeat, or whether permissions or a closed year are required.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating resource, scope, formats, and destination with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destination and formats are covered. The only real gap is file naming/overwrite semantics for a tool that writes to disk.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it defaults to the current year. The description adds only the indirect hint that the year also determines the target subfolder, which is marginal 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?

The description names a specific resource (the income/expense book, i.e. Czech tax evidence) with a year scope and the concrete deliverables (CSV + PDF) written to a named folder. That is enough to distinguish it from export_invoice_pohoda and export_vat_return, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this export over export_vat_return, tax_overview, or export_invoice_pohoda, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the book must be closed or the year complete). Usage is only inferable from the word 'daňová evidence'.

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