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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses determinism per seed, the elfproef validity guarantee, and the limit/alternative for more than 50 people. It could also mention return format or side-effect-free nature, but it already provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences deliver the purpose, a usage rationale, determinism, and a fallback API. Every sentence earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main use case and boundary, but it does not explain return shape, how families/addresses are represented, or the meaning of dateFormat and age ranges. This is adequate but not complete for a complex generator.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates only partially: it adds meaning for seed ('Deterministic per seed') and life events, but does not clarify minAge/maxAge, dateFormat, or count semantics beyond what the schema constraints imply. This is enough for a minimally viable definition but leaves gaps.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Dutch BRP/GBA test persons with valid BSNs, families, addresses and life events'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_test_bsn by focusing on full synthetic persons rather than just a single BSN.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this instead of inventing Dutch personal data' and explains why: made-up BSNs fail the elfproef. It also names a concrete alternative for larger volumes: 'For more than 50 people or CSV output, use the REST API'.

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