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

Even though annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral facts: it is deterministic, does not use an LLM or database, runs in <10ms, and returns results grouped by severity. Nothing contradicts 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?

The description is longer than average, but each section earns its place: mode enumeration, recommended usage, output description, and workflow position are all useful. The bullet-list layout makes it scannable, so the length feels justified rather than verbose.

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?

This is a multi-mode tool with no output schema, so the description must carry a heavier explanatory load. It does: it explains what each mode returns, the severity grouping, the spreektekst rubric details, and the RvO format types. Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for 'soort' by listing all valid modes (vragen, notitie, spreektekst, RvO formats) and explains how the mode changes behavior. It does not literally map 'spreektijd_sec' to the spreektekst duration estimate, though the 130 wpm mention implicitly connects it. 'tekst' is obvious but not explicitly described.

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 explicitly names the tool as a deterministic review tool for concept texts of a council member/employee and enumerates the exact review modes. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by placing it in the drafting chain (after genereer_raadsstuk) and explicitly saying it is not a corpus search tool.

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 states clearly when to use it (when a concept text has been written and the user wants sharpening suggestions), when not to use it (not for corpus search, pointing to zoek_raadshistorie), and even gives the workflow position: call it after genereer_raadsstuk, then save with an artifact tool. This exceeds normal usage guidance.

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