Porovnat nabídky konkrétního produktu

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on additional behavior: it loads a public endpoint, deduplicates recommended and price-based offers, and labels club/application/quantity conditions. It adds meaningful processing context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss edge cases or failure modes.

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 entire description is one dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds two valuable behavioral notes about deduplication and condition marking. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return structure and safety, but with six parameters, zero required fields, and very low schema coverage, the description leaves significant ambiguity about invocation. In particular, it presents slug as part of the endpoint while the schema marks no parameters as required, which could confuse an agent about what must be supplied.

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 only 17%, with only validOn having a real description in the schema. The description hints at slug via the endpoint template and at condition labeling, but it does not explain stores, location, productUrl, excludeMembershipOnly, or how they affect results. It fails to compensate for the otherwise low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Načte' / loads), the resource ('veřejný detail /sleva/{slug}'), and the distinguishing post-processing behaviors: deduplicating offers and marking club, application, and quantity conditions. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like search_products or compare_shopping_list, which are about discovery and comparison across products.

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 implies usage when a specific product slug is available and the agent needs its offers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_products or compare_shopping_list. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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