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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral payload detail: unavailable types carry reason_code + suggestion_code, and results include price, waarborg and booking_url. It does not, however, note anything about the deposit semantics or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint first and the return highlights second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still flags the reason_code/suggestion_code convention for unavailable types, which is the kind of non-obvious detail an agent benefits from knowing before parsing results. Only the absence of explicit alternative-routing leaves a minor gap.

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 aankomst, vertrek, personen and lang are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no note on the personen max of 6 or the lang default), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (controleer) and resource (accommodaties beschikbaarheid) for a period, and explicitly scopes out Camp & Dinner, which cleanly distinguishes it from getCamperAvailability and getRestaurantAvailability. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical exclusion (exclusief Camp & Dinner) implicitly routes the agent to the camper/restaurant siblings, and 'voor een periode' signals the date-range context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over getAccommodationDetails or buildBookingLink, leaving some routing to inference.

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