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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the resolution target (wetten.overheid.nl URL) and enumerates the accepted code vocabulary, which the agent cannot derive from 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input contract, then a concrete example. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the purpose, both inputs, their optionality, and the return value (the statute URL). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating the valid code set (BW4, Successiewet, Wet IB 2001, Wet OB 1968, BW6, Awb, Sr, Rv) and showing a concrete article format (4:63), effectively documenting accepted values the schema only samples.

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 (resolve), a specific resource (Dutch statute reference), and the concrete output (wetten.overheid.nl URL), plus the accepted code namespace. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ecli_lookup, eurlex_lookup, and nl_rechtspraak_lookup.

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?

The description gives an example invocation and notes the article is optional, which implies usage, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as legal_lookup or eurlex_lookup, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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