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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds useful domain context: the exact CBS table, the index base year, and that the result includes a year-over-year change. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or what happens when the optional sector parameter is omitted, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core output without any filler. Every clause earns its place by specifying the sector scope, the source table, the index base, and the comparison period. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects) and the rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what data is returned and how it is derived. The main missing piece is behavior when the sector parameter is omitted, and there is no output schema to fall back on for return structure. These are minor gaps against an otherwise sufficient definition.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional sector parameter, including examples of sector names and SBI codes, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any further semantics about the parameter, such as how sector values are matched or what occurs when it is omitted. With schema coverage this high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives the most recent CBS collective labour agreement wage index per sector, plus the year-over-year change, including the precise table ID (85663NED) and index base (2020=100). This is clear and specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like cao_zoeken or cao_details by content. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5 on this dimension.

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 says what the tool returns but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is only implied by the content. Like the calibration example update_drive, which received a 2 for lacking when-to-use guidance, this description offers no routing or selection advice.

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