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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the advice is organized per zone and daypart and that it covers equipment compatibility and RadioMatic's involvement, going beyond the 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?

The description is compact: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add scope. Every phrase carries useful information, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 advice tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the response will cover: suitable music per zone/daypart, equipment compatibility, and RadioMatic's role. Combined with the full parameter documentation and safety annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented with enums and a default. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning the 34 business types, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: recommending music for a business type, broken down by zone and time of day, and explaining how it works on existing equipment and what RadioMatic does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bereken_licentiekosten and check_licentieplicht.

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 intended context is clear: use this when music advice for a specific business type is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tool set makes the distinction evident.

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