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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/ idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content-level context (what the response covers: plans, inclusions, terms, the 10-location Enterprise threshold), but much of it is marketing copy rather than behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about data freshness or how the answer is scoped.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the entire text is duplicated in Dutch and English, roughly doubling length with zero added information. The second half of the Dutch sentence is a dense run-on of pricing and product claims.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough of the response shape (plans, per-location prices, inclusions, terms) to set expectations. It misses only routing guidance against the pricing/advice siblings.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented. The description never names aantal_vestigingen, though 'prijzen per locatie' and 'Vanaf 10 vestigingen: Enterprise' implicitly hint that location count drives the tier, which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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?

Concrete verb+resource: it returns RadioMatic's plans with per-location prices, plan contents, and terms. An agent can tell this is a static plan/price catalog rather than a cost calculator or comparison tool, though the description never names the siblings it differs from (bereken_licentiekosten, vergelijk_opties).

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 is only implied: an agent infers it should call this for an overview of plans and pricing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of the cost-calculation or comparison siblings, and no prerequisites stated.

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