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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns 'code and name', availability is gated on the inKaart package in SnelStart Web, and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and its return values, then adds availability and auth notes. The 'SnelStart:' prefix mildly echoes the title, but overall it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 usefully describes the return values (code and name), states the package availability constraint, and discloses the auth prerequisite. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (limit, query) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Lists ledger accounts (grootboekrekeningen) with code and name') and even declares the return shape. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_customers, list_purchases, or list_sales_invoices 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?

Provides clear usage context ('so a booking or an upload review can name a real account') that tells the agent why and when the tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach the 5 bar.

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