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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral value: point-in-time resolution via as_of, the toestand's own validity period explicitly separated from publication/in-force dates, and a pagination contract with has_more/next_offset that is 'never truncated silently'. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid BWB ids or unknown as_of dates, which keeps it below 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, densely front-loaded: identity and return shape first, then the handoff to the article-reading tool. No filler, and the parenthetical asides (e.g. 'separate from publication/in-force dates') each resolve a genuine ambiguity.

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 and four parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every field returned plus the pagination envelope. The only uncovered piece is how to discover a bwb_id in the first place, which is left to the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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 and the description mostly restates the schema's defaults. It earns one notch above baseline by framing offset/limit as a paging loop tied to has_more/next_offset and by tying as_of to version resolution ('as it stood on as_of'), which tells the agent how to iterate rather than just what each field is.

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 and resource ('Look up one Dutch regulation by its BWB id') and enumerates the returned surface: citeertitel, authority, legal domain(s), validity period, chapter structure, article list. It also differentiates from the sibling that reads text by routing article numbers to nl_wetten_get_article, so an agent can distinguish it from nl_wetten_search/get_article 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 entry condition (you need a BWB id) and a clear next step ('Pass an article number to nl_wetten_get_article to read its text'), plus the as_of default behavior. It stops short of naming nl_wetten_search as the way to obtain a BWB id when you don't already have one, which is the most likely discovery path an agent needs.

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