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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behaviour, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context the annotations don't carry: the result shape (up to 10 pages, each with a summary and a link) and the fact that both English and Dutch sources are searched, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tightly packed sentence with the topic, languages and result shape front-loaded, followed by a short example. The example largely repeats the one in the schema, which is the only redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup tool this covers the essentials: what corpus is searched, which languages, how many results, and what each result contains. Only edge behaviour (zero results, mixed-language results) is unaddressed, which is minor given the annotations and the simplicity of the schema.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines query including its length limits and gives examples. The description's main addition is that the query can be a natural-language question phrased in English or Dutch, plus its own near-duplicate example, so the marginal value is modest.

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 uses a specific verb and names the resource precisely: guides, free tools or best-of lists about living in or visiting Amsterdam, in English or Dutch. It returns 'up to 10 pages with summary and link'. It never names a sibling, so the distinction from directory_search or recent_news is inferred 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?

Usage context is clear: it is for questions about living in or visiting Amsterdam, illustrated with a concrete example query ('how do I get a BSN'). It gives no exclusions and doesn't mention when to prefer directory_search or whats_on instead, so an agent must infer the boundary from the topic domain.

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