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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the tool is cheap (<50ms), server-side cached, and returns a 'structured primer' with specific content sections. It also explains the dynamic 'today' field is computed per call. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 moderately long but well-structured: a concise summary of outputs and performance, followed by clear use-case bullet points and explicit non-use cases. Some redundancy exists (returns-line repeats the content summary) but the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and notes the cheap/cached nature. With zero parameters and a rich output description, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no burdenable weight. The description fully describes what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic information for a no-parameter call. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate, and the description goes further by specifying the markdown structure and content areas.

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 states a specific verb ('Retourneert', 'Gebruik') and a clear resource: a structured primer containing available municipalities, document types, current Rotterdam wethouders, coalition history, limitations, and recommended tool sequences. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as a context/session initialization tool rather than a retrieval, generation, or review tool. The explicit 'Gebruik deze tool wanneer' and 'Gebruik deze tool NIET wanneer' sections make the purpose and boundaries unambiguous.

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 and when-not-to-use criteria, including concrete triggers like 'new session', 'need current date', 'historical vote question', and 'unsure of tool sequence'. It also states when NOT to use it (when context already known or already fetched in same session). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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