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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that results carry a reliability score, data quality indicator and status, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result limits, matching behavior or ordering.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional sector qualifier placed after it. Nothing is wasted, though the return-value clause makes the sentence slightly dense.

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 read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what the results contain. Adding a note on how it differs from cao_details would make it complete.

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 both parameters (query and sector) are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that the search targets the cao name and that sector is optional. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Zoekt Nederlandse cao's op naam') plus the optional sector scope, and hints at the returned metadata (betrouwbaarheidsscore, datakwaliteit, status). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling cao_details or cao_salaris_trede, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives (cao_details, cao_salaris_trede, financiele_parameters) that share this domain. The 'optioneel per sector' note describes a parameter rather than a selection condition.

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