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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the two operating modes (no topic = enumerate fact groups, topic = filtered facts), which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and content, then the two call modes. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be skimmed.

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 single optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition covers scope, both call modes, and topic examples. It stops short of describing the shape of returned facts, which matters slightly given there is no output schema, but the annotation set already frames it as a safe read.

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% and the parameter already says 'A group id or a topic in a few words', so the baseline is a 3. The description earns a 4 by supplying concrete accepted topic values ('healthcare', 'moving house'), which meaningfully helps an agent formulate the argument.

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 concrete resource (checked KNM exam facts about which Dutch organization handles which situation) and names the covered organizations, which immediately separates it from explain_grammar, practice, and which_exam. An agent can tell what content comes back without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit branch conditions: call with no topic to get the fact groups, call with a topic to get matching facts. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools (e.g. inburgering_help), so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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