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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the safety bar is largely covered. The description adds one real constraint (inheritance-tax must go through the secure website), but omits return shape, count/ordering guarantees, or why 'eight' is fixed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Minor cost is that the second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity ('inheritance-tax requires the secure website').

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 no-parameter list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile this is close, but with no output schema the description should say what a 'scan' is or what the list returns. As written, an agent has to guess what the eight entries represent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a parameterless listing call.

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 ('List ... Successiekompas scans') and adds scope ('eight Belgian'), so the agent knows this is a catalog/enumeration tool. It also differentiates itself from the sibling erfkompas_step, which handles intakes rather than listing. Slightly reduced by the opaque domain term 'scans,' which is never defined.

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 gestures at routing by naming erfkompas_step for intakes and noting inheritance-tax needs the secure website, which hints at when a different path applies. However it never states plainly when to call this tool versus alternatives, and 'intakes' and 'the secure website' are left for the agent to interpret.

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