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

Adds context well beyond the annotations: at_date semantics, the strong guarantee that missing historical text is never silently replaced by today's text, today as the default reference date, that continuation pages need expected_sha256 from the first page, and that account linking is required. The only real gap is the return shape/error behavior, which annotations do not cover either.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then date semantics, then pagination, then the auth requirement — nothing is padded. 'Controleer beschikbare versie en bron' is the one line that is too terse to be actionable.

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 read-only, closed-world lookup with no output schema, the description covers the things an agent would otherwise get wrong: date fallback, no silent text substitution, pagination via expected_sha256, and the account prerequisite. Return contents are handled by the 'Controleer beschikbare versie en bron' instruction.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description has to carry the load and does for three of five parameters: at_date (meaning plus default), expected_sha256 (must come from the first page), and bwb_id/article (self-evident from purpose). offset is never mentioned and the ID/article formats go unexplained, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 ('Leest een opgeslagen artikel') and the two keys that address it (BWB-ID en artikelnummer), which cleanly separates it from search-law siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the required identifiers: you call this when you already have a BWB-ID and article number rather than a query. 'Controleer beschikbare versie en bron' hints at a verification step but is vague, and no alternative (search_law, check_source, fetch) is named with a condition for choosing it instead.

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