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

The description discloses pure generation behavior with no DB/network access and <10ms latency, default Rotterdam overlay behavior with graceful degradation, and the placeholder substitution mechanism for missing fields. This meaningfully complements the existing readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations and adds concrete behavioral constraints.

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 organized with clear bullet sections and remains information-dense. Every sentence adds value, though the length could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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?

Despite sparse schema and no output schema, the description covers return format (RvO-compliant structure with disclaimer), parameter semantics, exclusions, and downstream validation steps. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains doc_type choices, optional velden semantics with placeholder behavior, and gemeente overlay defaults. Each parameter receives concrete guidance beyond raw schema property names.

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 names a specific action (generate a fully formatted, RvO-compliant council document), lists the seven supported document types, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adviseer_raadsinstrument and beoordeel_tekst. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 when-to-use conditions, including prior use of adviseer_raadsinstrument polluted advice and reuse scenarios. It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (beoordeel_tekst for content review and format validation).

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