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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces the idempotency claim by revealing that an existing name is reused, and adds a non-obvious behavioral prerequisite (paid account required). That is real value beyond the structured metadata, though it says nothing about permissions or side effects on conflicting data.

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 compact sentence with a semicolon; the creation act is front-loaded and the two additional facts (reuse, paid account) are tight. No padding, but also no formatting to separate the prerequisite from the behavior.

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 non-destructive write tool with no output schema and zero param documentation, the description covers the idempotency behavior and the account prerequisite, which are the most agent-relevant facts. It still leaves the parameters and the effect on the created resource under-specified.

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% for two parameters. The description only touches on 'name' indirectly via the reuse note and says nothing about the 'description' parameter, leaving its meaning and constraints undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Maakt ... een dossier op'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read tools like read_dossier and list_dossiers. It lacks any explicit routing to alternatives, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 qualifier 'op uitdrukkelijk verzoek' (only on explicit request) implies a usage context, and 'Betaald account nodig' states a prerequisite. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as list_dossiers or save_research.

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