ares_check_insolvenci

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources read (seznamRegistraci for IR and CEÚ), the return format (isInsolvent plus state codes), and implies read-only behavior through 'check' and 'reads'. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing ICO) or rate limits, but covers the core behavioral expectations for a simple lookup.

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?

The description is concise at four short sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, data source, output, and use case. It is front-loaded with the 'fast red-flag check' phrase, making the tool's essence immediately clear. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works (reads specific registers), what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks mention of error conditions or limitations, but for a single-purpose check, it is substantially complete.

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 100% (the `ico` parameter is fully described as 'Czech IČO of the entity to check'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely reinforces that the entity is Czech. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's function: a fast red-flag check for Czech entity insolvency/bankruptcy. It specifies the exact data source (ARES seznamRegistraci for IR and CEÚ) and output (isInsolvent boolean + state codes), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform broader lookups like ares_lookup_company or ares_full_due_diligence.

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('pre-contract sanity check') and positions the tool as 'fast' versus more comprehensive alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity about placement relative to sibling tools.

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