Check or Submit a Best Price Offer (Nabídnout cenu)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the description does not need to restate that PROPOSE is a write. It does add genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the authentication requirement and the fact that CHECK is a non-mutating precondition probe. However, it never says whether a submitted offer is binding, whether it can be withdrawn or re-proposed, or what CHECK actually returns as constraints.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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers both modes plus the authentication caveat with no filler or repetition. The action split is stated in the order an agent would need it, before the auth note.

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 5-parameter dual-mode tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description covers modes, precondition and auth adequately. The remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it does not describe what a CHECK returns (eligibility flags, min/max price bounds), which would tell the agent how to act on the result.

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%, with the action enum, currency, quantity and proposedPrice all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the two action meanings and adds no cross-parameter rules (for example, that proposedPrice is ignored or rejected under CHECK, or how currency interacts with the listing's price).

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 names the specific verb pair (check constraints / submit a price proposal) and the exact resource (a listing with 'Nabídnout cenu' enabled), so the agent knows precisely which action it is invoking. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling aukro_place_bid, which is the closest alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states the precondition for use (the listing must have 'Nabídnout cenu' enabled) and maps each enum value to a distinct intent, plus the auth requirement. It stops short of advising that CHECK should precede PROPOSE or explaining when to prefer this over aukro_place_bid, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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