isir_lustrace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mutual-exclusivity rule for input combos and the jen_aktualni filter semantics, but says nothing about result limits (max_vysledku), matching behavior (bez_diakritiky, presna_shoda_jmen), permissions, or error/empty-result handling 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?

Front-loads purpose, then uses a compact bulleted list for the input combos followed by the return shape. Efficient and easy to scan; only minor redundancy in restating the web-service name alongside the purpose.

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 10-parameter tool this covers the primary lookup paths and the return content well, and an output schema exists so return detail is not strictly required. The gap is the three undocumented control flags (max_vysledku, bez_diakritiky, presna_shoda_jmen), which an agent cannot invoke confidently without guessing.

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% across 10 params, so the description must compensate. It handles ico (8 digits), rc (with/without slash), spisova_znacka (two format examples), nazev_osoby + jmeno + datum_narozeni (YYYY-MM-DD) and jen_aktualni, but leaves max_vysledku, bez_diakritiky and presna_shoda_jmen entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lustrace v ISIR' against ISIR_CUZK_WS2) and names the exact output entity (list of proceedings with spisová značka, soud, dlužník, stav, detailId). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting detailId is 'pro další nástroje', positioning this as the entry lookup versus e.g. isir_detail_rizeni.

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?

Gives concrete entry guidance by enumerating the accepted input combinations ('Zadejte JEDNU z kombinací') and implies this is the first call that feeds downstream tools. However it never states when NOT to use it or names a specific alternative sibling, so usage context is clear but without explicit exclusions.

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