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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool provides 'uitleg, bronnen en wat je kunt doen' (explanation, sources, and actions), which reveals output content and a consultative nature beyond a simple yes/no. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and the deciding factors; the second adds relevant scenarios and output value. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 decision tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the user gets (indication, explanation, sources, actions). It covers the main use cases and the deciding parameters. The optional fte parameter is not mentioned, but its context (only when staff hears music) is implicit in 'wie_hoort_het'. Overall, the description is complete for its complexity.

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 only 33% (only fte has a description). The description compensates by explicitly connecting the two required parameters (geluidsbron and wie_hoort_het) to the decision process, saying the outcome depends on them. It doesn't enumerate enum values, but it clarifies their role, which helps an agent understand the inputs' significance.

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 tells whether a Dutch business needs a Buma/Stemra and/or Sena license for music, based on sound source and audience. It goes beyond a simple restatement by specifying the decision factors, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bereken_licentiekosten or pakketten_en_prijzen, which limits differentiation.

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 gives concrete scenarios: if you received a letter/invoice from Mijnlicentie or want to know how to arrange music, this tool is for you. It implies this is the go-to for checking license need, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, so guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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