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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing what the scoring composes (goal alignment, cost-effectiveness, maintenance) and that ranking is deterministic under a named policy profile. It does not mention any cost, latency, or openWorld data-freshness implications despite openWorldHint=true.

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-loaded with a one-line statement of what the tool does, followed by scope and an Args block, which is a clean scannable structure. The prose paragraph and the Args list overlap slightly (policy_profile defaults are implied twice), but no sentence is wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the thorough parameter coverage, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke correctly; only the absence of guidance on choosing this tool over search_bgi_measures or compare_measures leaves a gap.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it documents all four parameters, gives a concrete gemeente_code example ("GM0599" for Rotterdam) with a routing hint, lists the five accepted goal values, enumerates all six policy profiles with the default, and states the limit default and maximum of 50. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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: 'Rank BGI measures for a municipality using policy-weighted scoring', so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces (an ordered list, not a search result). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_bgi_measures or compare_measures, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Offers usage guidance only in the form of 'Use different policy profiles to see how priorities change the ranking', which explains how to vary the call rather than when this tool is the right choice. The one explicit routing hint, 'Use lookup_municipality to find codes', is about parameter preparation, not tool selection. No when-not or alternative-tool guidance is given.

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