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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint:false and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the normalization behavior (whitespace and capitalization) and what is returned (source passages and quotation context for a claim).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core check and closing with the important limitation. Every clause earns its place; it is only marginally longer than strictly necessary.

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 no annotation gaps left, the description does most of the work: it says what is checked, how comparison is normalized, and what comes back. It leaves the exact response shape and the role of the optional quotation underspecified, a minor gap for a three-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining ecli, claim and quotation. It names the ECLI concept and the check against a stored quotation, and 'citaatcontext bij een bewering' hints at how claim and quotation combine, but it never cleanly maps the three named parameters (notably the optional quotation) to their roles.

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 states a precise verb+resource: it verifies whether an ECLI exists in the collection and whether a quotation appears in the stored ruling, including whitespace/case normalization. This scope is clearly distinct from siblings like save_source or search, which an agent can infer without opening any 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?

It gives an explicit negative boundary — 'Beoordeelt niet of de rechter de bewering ondersteunt; een citaat kan ook een partijstelling zijn' — which tells the agent what conclusion this tool does NOT license. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases it declines, so it is clear context without full routing.

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