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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the 1-11 scale and the verbal labels for each range, providing context on the type of response the agent can expect.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently combines the purpose, scale breakdown, use-case question, and example. It is well-structured and contains no redundant sentences, though the example could be on a separate line for clarity.

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 simple tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the scale, and a typical use case. It answers the common question and provides an example, making it very functional.

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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no new information about the parameter beyond the example, meeting the baseline of 3 given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'official Dutch air quality index (LKI)', and the scope 'for a Netherlands station or place'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like luchtmeetnet_measurements and luchtmeetnet_stations by specifying it returns a composite index.

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 implies usage for getting the overall air quality index but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct comparison with siblings.

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