list_keywords

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 filter matching semantics (partial name, diacritic-insensitive, with examples) and the return shape (code -> Czech name), but says nothing about the limit/truncation behavior or any permission 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and then the parameter and return notes. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 simple lookup with an output schema already describing the return values, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and downstream usage adequately. The only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'filter' well (partial, diacritic-insensitive substring matching with examples), but the second parameter ('limit', default 50) is never mentioned, leaving a silent truncation behavior undocumented.

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 ('číselník klíčových slov') and its role as a classifier applied to decisions, which lets an agent distinguish it from search tools. It lacks contrast against the other list_* sibling (list_courts), so differentiation is partial.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the downstream purpose: names and codes returned here feed the 'keywords' parameter of search_decisions, which is a clear routing context. It does not state when-not to use it or name any alternative lookup tool.

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