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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real context: the minimum name length, the API-key/access requirement, and the note that it triggers no external send and needs no confirmation. That last point usefully clarifies the operational footprint beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and auth notes. Mostly tight, though 'It sends nothing and reaches no one, so it does not ask for confirmation' is slightly repetitive phrasing that could be trimmed.

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 correctly states the return value ('returns its ID') and covers auth prerequisites and a key validation rule for a mutation tool. Annotations already handle the read/write safety profile, so the remaining coverage is adequate.

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%, with each of the three parameters including its own description, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the four-character name rule but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Adds a customer under Relaties, Klanten'), names the created artifact, and adds that it returns the customer card ID. Combined with the name, an agent can tell this creates a customer entity rather than listing or reading one, distinguishing it from snelstart_list_customers.

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 description lists constraints (name length, what Web cannot do) but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what a prerequisite workflow looks like. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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