isir_detail_rizeni

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: the 1-hour cache and how `obnovit=True` bypasses it. It remains silent on error/not-found behavior and does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then the parameter notes in a compact second line. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative; nothing is padding.

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 not be described, yet the description usefully summarizes the payload shape anyway. Identifier formats and caching are covered; only usage routing and failure behavior are absent.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: `rizeni` accepts a case number (spisová značka), a 32-hex detailId, or a detail URL, and `obnovit=True` bypasses the 1-hour cache. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare 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 first line names the specific resource (header of an insolvency proceeding) and enumerates exactly which fields come back (debtor, status, case number, court, administrator, deadlines, last event date, event counts per section A–P). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like isir_udalosti or isir_dokumenty, though no sibling is named 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 call this versus isir_lustrace, isir_udalosti, or isir_tok_udalosti. The only conditional guidance is for the `obnovit` flag (bypass cache), which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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