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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned content and flagging that cited BWB ids are 'often empty' with a pointer to cited_bwb_ids_note, which prevents false expectations. It omits any note on not-found behavior, but that is minor for a single-entity read.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier before listing return fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the long comma-separated field list makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly: full text, court, dates, procedure, rechtsgebied, ECLI relations, and BWB ids. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% for the single ecli parameter, so the schema already documents the argument and its example. The description repeats the ECLI format but adds no syntax or validation nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read), a specific resource (one Dutch court decision), and the exact identifier (ECLI) with a concrete example. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling nl_rechtspraak_search, which is the plural/filtered counterpart.

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 phrase 'Read one ... by its ECLI' plus the ECLI example makes the trigger condition clear and implicitly contrasts with searching. It also names downstream chaining targets (nl_wetten_get_law / nl_wetten_get_article), though it never explicitly states when to prefer this over nl_rechtspraak_search or what to do if the ECLI is unknown.

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