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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — the link is pre-filled from the conversation and it alludes to 'wat er daarna gebeurt' — but never says what actually happens after the trial, so the disclosure stays partial.

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 front-loaded sentences that get to the point immediately, with the core action first and the pre-fill behaviour second. The English restatement is near-verbatim duplication, which pads length without adding information, but it is a minor cost.

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?

A read-only, idempotent link-generation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema — the description need not explain return values. Combined with the annotations it is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the vague 'what happens next' reference leaves a small gap.

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%, so every parameter (fte, platform, soort_zaak, oppervlakte_m2, aantal_vestigingen) is already documented, including the enum mapping rules. The description only adds that these values are drawn from the conversation, which the schema descriptions already state, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it hands back a link for a 14-day free trial of RadioMatic, and notes the link comes pre-filled from the conversation. This is distinguishable from siblings like bereken_licentiekosten or pakketten_en_prijzen, though no sibling is named to make the boundary explicit.

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: the mention of 'de situatie uit het gesprek' signals it belongs inside a live customer conversation where details are already known. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternative tools such as vergelijk_opties or aanbieders_overzicht.

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