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 and the description only needs to add substance. It does add what gets included in the comparison (licence fees where applicable), which is useful. With no output schema present, however, the description never says what the result looks like (a ranked cost table? per-option breakdown?), leaving a real gap for a computation tool.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful scope information. The remainder restates the same audience targeting once in Dutch and again in English, so a sizeable share of the text is verbatim duplication that does not add decision-relevant detail.

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?

Seven parameters, one required, no output schema, and a branch enum with 47 values — a moderately complex pricing model. The description explains the scope of the comparison but not the shape of the answer or how inputs such as fte, oppervlakte_m2 and aantal_vestigingen drive the costs, which is what an agent would need to report results credibly.

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 the enum for soort_zaak even documents edge-case mappings, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only indirect meaning by stating that licence fees are factored in, implying why surface area, waiting room size and headcount matter, but it does not explain how any parameter affects the comparison.

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 first sentence names a concrete operation (putting yearly costs side by side) and enumerates the exact options compared: radio, business streaming services, royalty-free, RadioMatic, plus Buma/Stemra and Sena fees. That is a specific verb+resource combination an agent can act on. It stops short of naming the closely related siblings (bereken_licentiekosten, aanbieders_overzicht), so the boundary between 'compare total costs' and 'calculate licence fees' must be inferred.

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?

It gives clear intent-based triggers: for anyone wanting the best and cheapest way to arrange in-store music, or seeking a cheaper alternative to their current service. That covers the typical use case well. It offers no explicit exclusions or pointer to the sibling that should be used instead when the user only wants licence costs or a provider list.

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