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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it reveals the tool is a pure knowledge base without retrieval or database calls, has <10ms response, and includes a disclaimer about local variation in rules and procedures. It also details the structure of the return value, covering safety and performance traits.

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?

The description is long but structured into clear sections (when to use, when not, return values). Every sentence adds information, and the bullet-style listing improves readability. It is more verbose than minimal, but given the complex nature of the tool and lack of output schema, this is justified.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully details the return value: a markdown recommendation including target, speed, binding, legal basis, when/when-not, outcome type, college obligations, execution duty, typical processing time, and a template. It also includes disclaimers and links to alternatives, making the tool self-contained for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain each parameter explicitly, but it provides examples of goals ('informatie, college ter verantwoording roepen, uitspraak/besluit, nieuw beleid') that map to 'doel', and discusses urgency and alternative instruments. However, it leaves 'onderwerp' and 'op_agenda' without clear guidance, so compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it advises which council instrument fits the council member's goal, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating when NOT to use it (for content questions or finding existing motions, use search tools).

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 provides explicit 'Gebruik deze tool wanneer' and 'Gebruik deze tool NIET wanneer' sections, including concrete scenarios and named alternative tools (zoek_raadshistorie, zoek_moties). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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