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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one conditional behavior—'Vanaf 10 vestigingen een voorstel op maat'—plus domain context about Buma/Stemra/Sena exemption, which is useful but modest 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose (packages, prices, conditions, new songs). The Buma/Stemra/Sena sentence is domain context that earns some place by explaining a key differentiator, though it is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool. No redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, safety covered by annotations, and no output schema, the description lists exactly what the caller gets: packages, prices per location, daily new-song counts, and conditions. The only minor gap is the unstated output format, but the described content is adequately 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% (aantal_vestigingen is documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: 'prijzen per locatie' explains why the parameter matters (pricing scales with location count), and 'Vanaf 10 vestigingen een voorstel op maat' introduces a threshold that changes the result for that parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Geeft') plus a clear resource: RadioMatic packages with per-location prices, daily new-song counts, and conditions. This content distinguishes it from siblings like bereken_licentiekosten (license cost calculation) and aanbieders_overzicht (provider overview), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool answers questions about RadioMatic package offerings and pricing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing relative to alternatives such as vergelijk_opties or bereken_licentiekosten.

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