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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: the content is verbatim from the pricing page, signaling it is a fixed snapshot rather than live or personalized data.

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 with the substantive purpose front-loaded. The trailing language note is mild redundancy against the schema but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there is only one optional parameter. The description covers what the tool returns and its provenance, which is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup.

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 single lang enum already documents 'nl' and 'en' fully. The description's 'lang is nl or en' merely repeats the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 description states a specific resource and content scope: FAQs about prices, maintenance and approach, taken verbatim from the pricing page. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_knowledge_base or get_service, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus search_knowledge_base or list_services. The phrase 'verbatim from the pricing page' implies use for canonical, static answers, but the agent must infer the routing rule.

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