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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful output-behavior context beyond annotations: the result is broken into numbered 'lid' subdivisions, includes the effective date of that exact text, and the toestand's validity period as separate fields. It also explains that as_of enables reading past versions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by return-value details and the historical as_of tip. Every sentence contributes, though the first sentence is dense with parenthetical detail.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return structure (full article text, lid subdivisions, effective date, validity period) and the historical versioning behavior. For a read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, this is complete enough; only error behavior (e.g., missing article) is unmentioned.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples. The description reinforces the article-number format ('1:3') and ties it to nl_wetten_get_law, and explains the as_of default and historical use, but this is supplemental rather than compensating for any schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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'), resource ('original Dutch text of one article/section of a Dutch regulation'), and the exact identifiers (BWB id and article number). It explicitly names the sibling tool nl_wetten_get_law as the source for article numbers, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either 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?

Clear about when to use it: reading one article by BWB id and article number, and using an earlier as_of for historical versions. It references nl_wetten_get_law for obtaining article numbers, giving a soft alternative pathway. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nl_wetten_search or state when not to use this tool.

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