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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing provenance ('op basis van merk-aankondigingen en onze eigen sale-waarnemingen'), telling the agent these are predictions, not confirmed prices. It still doesn't say how reliable/sparse expected future sales may be.

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 whose key differentiator ('vooruit') appears first. Dense but every clause contributes; the parenthetical '(van/tot, korting)' efficiently lists the returned attributes.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the content (announced/expected sales, date range, discount). But it omits how results are structured, whether empty results are common for future periods, and the multi-market scope implied by the markt enum.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'markt' is documented in the schema (default nl, enum values), but 'merk' has no description. The phrase 'per merk' gives minimal semantic anchoring for that parameter, so the description partially compensates for the coverage gap but adds no format, multi-value, or filter semantics.

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 resource and scope: forward-looking 'sale-planning vooruit' with announced/expected sales per brand, including period (van/tot) and discount. The 'vooruit' framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling actuele_sales, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 word 'vooruit' plus 'aangekondigde en verwachte' implies this is the future/upcoming-sales lookup, which points an agent toward when to use it. However there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusion, and no named alternative among the many sales/catalog siblings.

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