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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description is free to add provenance instead: answers are 'checked passages from Kora's guides with official sources and a last-checked date,' and the no-question mode enumerates the sections returned (route, exams, booking, exam day, results). It does not say what happens for an unsupported or out-of-scope question, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the audience and the mode split, with no filler. The long parenthetical topic lists are dense but functional; slightly tighter grouping would improve scanability.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the nature of the returned content (sourced, dated passages). The main remaining gap is edge-case behavior when a question falls outside the listed topics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real scope information beyond the schema: it enumerates the question domains the parameter actually supports (booking, DigiD, exam day rules, exam part formats, KNM, results and waiting times, A2 vs B1). That helps an agent decide whether a given question belongs here at all.

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 resource (inburgering guidance) and splits behavior into two clearly labeled modes: no question returns a start-here overview, a question returns checked passages from Kora's guides. It does not name the siblings (knm_facts, explain_grammar, practice, which_exam) as boundaries, and listing 'KNM' as a supported question topic blurs the line with knm_facts, 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?

It gives a clear usage condition — 'For anyone who has to do inburgering and doesn't know how it works' — and specifies what each input mode yields, which is enough for an agent to decide between calling with and without a question. It stops short of explicit exclusions or pointing to sibling tools for grammar or KNM drilling.

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