list_courts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly conveys a read-only dictionary lookup and discloses a non-obvious trait — the filter is diacritic-insensitive — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the resource identity, the filter semantics, and the cross-tool code usage are each front-loaded and earn their place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation; for a one-parameter read-only lookup the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, example inputs, and how the output is reused elsewhere. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% (the single 'filter' param is bare), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the filter as a match on part of the name, notes diacritics are ignored, and supplies three concrete example values ('Ostrav', 'krajský', 'Praha'). This fully specifies the only parameter.

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 concrete resource and what it returns (a code -> name lookup table of courts, 'Číselník soudů (kód -> název)'), plus an optional partial-name filter. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_keywords or search_decisions by domain, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 clear context for why the tool exists: the returned 'kódy' are consumed by the 'court' parameter of the other tools, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming a sibling alternative.

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