tax_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect: it "automatically first loads new invoices from the Issued/Received invoice folders." That tells the agent the call triggers invoice ingestion before reporting, which is valuable and not derivable from the schema. It still omits whether the overall operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, and whether the auto-load is idempotent.

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 compact sentences/blocks: the first front-loads the reported metrics, the second covers the auto-load behavior and dashboard alternative. There is minor redundancy in the run-on metric list, but nothing that should be cut.

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 and all parameters are documented, so the description only needs to convey purpose and the ingestion side effect, which it does. For a multi-metric aggregation tool the remaining gap—safety/return-shape—is largely covered by the output schema, leaving it adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so year, method (ytd/3m), and with_forecast are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how the period affects the reported figures, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 enumerates the specific report contents an agent will get: income, tax and insurance estimate vs. advances, VAT for the period, unpaid invoices, flags, and deadlines. This makes it identifiable as an aggregated tax/finance overview rather than a single-record tool, though it uses a colloquial header ("Jak jsem na tom") instead of an explicit verb and doesn't directly name distinguishing siblings like export_vat_return.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Grafický přehled: ucetka dashboard" hints that the visual dashboard is a separate route, implying this tool is for the data summary. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative in the tool family, so the agent must infer the division of labor.

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